TIII:  PRINCIPLES  OF 
ARGUMENTATION. 

(REVISED  AND  AUGMENTED) 


BY 


GEORGE  PIERCE  BAKU; 

"K     K'O.I.tMl     IN     11\H\AKI.    I'MVKUMTY 


HENRY  BARRETT  HUNTINGTON 

AMUTAXT  PBOFSMOB  or  KXOLUH  ix  BHOWX  UMIVEUITY 


1  Ucing  words  to  conrey  truth  and  to  arou*e 
(Father  Dam^n^. 


GINN  AND  COMPANY 

BOSTON     -     NEW    YORK     •     CHICAGO     •     LONDON 
ATLANTA     •     DALLAS     •     COLUMBUS     •     SAN   FRANCISCO 


COPYRIGHT,  1895, 1905 
BY    (JKoKdK    1MKUCK   BAKEK 


A..L  KIUHTS    UKSKKVKI* 

518.1 


gtftenteum 


C.INX  AND  COMPANY  •  PKO- 
I'RII.'loRS  •  UOSTON  •  U.S.A. 


TO 


ADAMS  SHERMAN   HILL 

H-  >\  I.>  ION    1-UOFK880B  OF  RHETORIC  AND  ORATORY 

I:MI:I:I  I  i  >  IN   11  \u\  \ui»  i  M\  1:101 1  v 


AS  HE  WITHDRAWS  FROM  ACTIVE  PARTICIPATION 
IN  WORK  WHICH  IS  MAINLY  HIS  CREATION 

TWO  FORMER  PUPILS 
GRATEFULLY  REDEDICATE  THIS  BOOK 


iii 


PREFACE 

The  study  of  argumentation  has  increased  so  rapidly  in 
schools  and  colleges  during  the  ten  years  since  the  first 
edition  of  this  book  was  published  that  it  is  no  longer 
necessary  to  justify  the  educational  importance  of  the 
subject  Nor  is  it  necessary  now  to  explain  in  detail  the 
kind  of  argumentation  taught  in  this  book.  For  these 
reasons  a  large  amount  of  justificatory  and  explanatory 
material  which  filled  the  early  pages  of  the  first  edition 
has  been  removed.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  ten  years 
since  the  Principles  of  Argumentation  appeared,  it  has 
become  steadily  clearer  that  the  principles  of  analysis 
needed  restating  for  greater  accuracy  and  simplicity ;  that 
the  difficult  subject  of  evidence,  especially  refutation, 
should  be  given  fuller  treatment ;  that  the  material  in  the 
chapter  on  brief-drawing  could  be  simplified  and  clarified 
by  rearrangement  and  a  different  emphasis ;  that  persua- 
sion needed  much  more  detailed  exposition;  and  that, 
perhaps  the  most  marked  need  of  all,  the  importance 
of  rhetoric  in  argumentation  should  be  given  insistent 
emphasis. 

The  purpose  of  the  editors  in  their  thorough  rewriting 
of  the  old  book  has  been  to  represent  as  exactly  as  possible 
the  theory  of  argumentation  as  they  have  been  teaching 


vi  PREFACE 

it  during  the  last  two  or  three  years.  The  new  book 
contains  no  untried  theorizing :  it  is  the  result  of  repeated 
class-room  exercises,  extensive  reading  of  manuscripts,  and 
consultation  with  many  kinds  of  students  at  Harvard 
University,  Brown  University,  and  elsewhere.  The  authors 
wish  to  insist  that  this  book  is  not  meant  to  be  used  by 
the  teacher  as  the  basis  of  lectures  on  the  subject,  but 
should  be  constantly  in  the  hands  of  the  class.  In  a  sub- 
ject like  argumentation,  theory  should  be  but  the  stepping- 
stone  to  practice,  and  a  practice  that  is  frequent  and  varied. 
Convinced  of  this  from  experience  with  their  classes,  the 
authors  have  provided  a  large  amount  of  illustration  of 
the  theory  set  forth,  and  exercise  material  which  should 
be  ample  enough  to  provide  a  teacher  for  two  or  three 
years  without  important  repetition.  The  work  of  the 
teacher  using  the  revised  Principles  should  be  not  merely 
to  repeat  it  to  the  class,  but  to  amplify,  reemphasize, 
re-illustrate,  and,  above  all,  by  quizzes  and  exercises  to 
make  sure  that  his  class  can  successfully  apply  the  theory 
expounded.  The  more  the  student  can  be  made  to  do  for 
himself  the  better :  as  far  as  possible  the  teacher  should  be 
only  the  guide  and  critic  who  leads  him,  or,  if  necessary, 
obliges  him  to  grasp  by  application  the  principles  which 
he  has  read  in  the  book.  Good  argumentation  rests  ulti- 
mately on  the  ability  to  think  for  oneself. 

Perhaps  the  chief  weakness  to-day  of  the  greatly 
increased  number  of  courses  in  argumentation  is  so  rigid 
an  observance  of  rules  that  the  product  is  nearly  or 


PREFACE  vii 

entirely  lacking  in  literary  value.  Such  a  result  shows 
either  that  the  students  are  still  so  hampered  by  con- 
sciousness of  principles  to  be  observed  as  to  be  unable 
to  combine  with  them  their  preceding  knowledge  of  rhet- 
oric, or  that  the  teacher  fails  to  recognize  that  argument 
is  really  good  only  when,  as  in  other  forms  of  expression, 
it  has  attained  the  art  that  conceals  art.  Throughout 
the  present  volume  the  authors  have  tried  to  keep  before 
their  readers  the  relation  of  thought  to  style  and  have 
meant  to  decry  steadily  any  rigidity  or  formality  of 
expression  when  the  principles  have  once  been  mastered. 
In  good  argument,  thought  must  of  course  precede  pre- 
sentation, but  without  fitting  presentation  even  good 
thinking  often  becomes  futile. 

It  is  a  pity  that  in  many  instances  study  of  argument 
is  regarded  only  as  a  stepping-^tone  to  successful  debating, 
the  most  rigid  of  argumentative  forms.  In  reality  it  is 
a  training,  often  much  needed  among  college  students,  in 
habits  of  accurate  thinking,  fair-mindedness,  and  thorough- 
ness. If  this  new  edition  helps  to  instruction  in  which 
argument  is  regarded  from  the  start  by  teacher  and  pupil 
as  above  all  a  means  to  accurate,  thorough,  formulated 
thinking,  enjoyable  to  the  thinker,  presented  in  a  well- 
phrased  and  individual  style,  the  chief  desire  of  the  authors 
in  their  revision  will  be  fulfilled. 

Acknowledgment  is  due  the  many  teachers  whose  help- 
ful comment  and  criticism  on  the  old  book  have  helped 
greatly  in  reworking  its  material.  The  authors  wish  to 


viii  PREFACE 

thank  also  the  following  students  past  or  present  of  Har- 
vard, Brown  and  Yale  Universities  for  work  of  theirs 
included  among  the  illustrations:  Messrs.  J.  J.  Shepard, 
H.  H.  Thurlow,  A.  W.  Manchester,  R.  D.  Brackett,  R.  W. 
Stearns,  A.  W.  Wyman,  R.  H.  Ewell,  A.  Fox,  C.  D. 
Lockwood,  I.  Grossman,  and  F.  B.  Wagner.  They  are 
indebted  to  Mr.  G.  W.  Latham,  Instructor  in  English  at 
Brown  University,  for  helpful  suggestions  as  the  book  has 
been  in  preparation ;  as  well  as  to  Assistant  Professor 
W.  T.  Foster  of  Bowdoin  College  for  material  used  in  the 
Appendix ;  and  especially  to  Mr.  R.  L.  Lyman,  Instructor 
in  English  at  Harvard  University,  both  for  aid  in  prepar- 
ing illustrative  material  printed  in  the  Appendix  and  for 
constant  helpful  suggestions. 

GEORGE  P.  BAKER 
CAMBRIDGE,  February,  1906  H.  B.  HUNTINGTON 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    NATURE  OF  ARGUMENTATION  1 

EXERCISES 13 

II.    ANALYSIS 14 

1.  WHAT  ANALYSIS  is 14 

2.  THE  FIRST  STEP  IN  ANALYSIS  —  PHRASING  A  PROPO- 

SITION      .........  17 

3.  THE  SECOND  STEP — DEFINING  THE  TERMS    ".         .  20 

4.  THE  THIRD  STEP  —  FINDING  THE  SPECIAL  ISSUES       .  43 
6.  THE  FOURTH  STEP — CONSTRUCTING  THE  CASE        .  60 

SUMMARY  OF  STEPS  IN  ANALYSIS 60 

EXERCISES 61 

III.    EVIDENCE 64 

1.  ASSERTION  AND  EVIDENCE        .....  64 

2.  THE  NATURE  OF  EVIDENCE 78 

3.  Tin:   KINDS  OF  EVIDENCE 84 

4.  THE  TESTS  OF  EVIDENCE Ill 

I.  Testing  the  Statements  of  Witnesses        .        .  Ill 
II.  Testing  the  Conditions  under  which  the  State- 
ments were  made    ......  120 

III.  Examining  the  Witness  Himself       .        .        .  122 

IV.  Three  Kinds  of  Trustworthy  Evidence         .        .  130 
V.  Fallacies  arising  from  Lack  of  Definition         .  137 

VI.  Fallacies  arising  from  Errors  of  Observation        .  142 

VII.  Fallacies  due  to  Errors  in  Reasoning        .        .  146 

6.  REFUTATION          .                 '. 168 

EXERCISES 194 

ix 


x  CONTENTS 

<  II  \  PTKR  PAGE 

*~1V.    BRIEF-DRAWING 205 

1.  WHAT  THE  BRIEF  is 205 

2.  THE  INTRODUCTION .217 

3.  THE  BRIEF  PROPER 280 

4.  THE  CONCLUSION 253 

RULES  FOR  BRIEF-DRAWING 256 

EXERCISES 285 

V.    PRESENTATION I_>:H» 

1.  PERSUASION -jno 

I.  Persuasion  arising  from  the  Nature  of  the  Subject  206 
II.  Persuasion  .arising  from   the   Relation    of  the 

Speaker  to  his  Audience  or  Subject       .         .  2J>7 

III.  Persuasion  arising  from  the  Relation  of  the  Audi- 

ence to  the  SubjecUMatter   .        .        .        .  814 

IV.  Excitation 331 

2.  THE  RIIETORU   op  ARGUMENT          .        .        .        .  341 
EXERCISES 394 

vi.    DKKATL.M; 

1.  M.I:I  i-i.s J-j:; 

AITKNIHX  425 

• 

IN:                                                                                          ,  600 


ARGUMENTATION 

CHAPTER  I 
THE   NATURE  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

No  man  can  escape  thinking.  At  times  he  must  face 
questions  on  which  it  is  vital  to  his  happiness  or  success 
that  he  should  think  clearly ;  at  times,  too,  it  will  be 
essential  to  his  own  welfare  or  that  of  those  dear  to  him 
to  be  able  so  to  present  the  result  of  his  clear  and  cogent 
thinking  as  to  make  his  hearers  act  as  he  wishes.  Herein 
lies  the  importance  of  Argumentation  for  all  men.  But 
any  one  who  has  tried  to  make  another  person  act  in  some 
i-ular  way  knows  that  he  has  often  failed,  even  when 
feeling  strongly  the  lightness  of  what  he  advocated,  because 
he  could  not  convey  to  the  other  person  his  sense  of  its 
lightness,  or,  even  when  the  desirability  of  the  act  was 
; id n lilted,  could  not  move  him  to  do  it.  Too  often  the 
root  of  the  difficulty  is  that,  though  the  speaker  feels 
strongly  on  the  subject,  he  has  not  thought  clearly  on  it. 

What  is  more  common  than  the  sight  of  grown  men  talking 
on  political  or  moral  or  religious  subjects  in  that  off-hand, 
idle  way,  which  we  signify  by  the  word  unreal  ?  "  That  they 
simply  do  not  know  what  they  are  talking  about"  is  the 
spontaneous,  silent  remark  of  any  man  of  sense  who  heard 
them.  Hence  such  persons  have  no  difficulty  in  contradicting 

1 


TI»>:  NATIVE:  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

themselves  in  successive  sentences  without  being  conscious 
of  it  Hence  others,  whose  defect  in  intellectual  training  is 
more  latent,  have  their  most  unfortunate  crotchets,  as  they  are 
called,  or  hobbies,  which  deprive  them  of  the  influence  which 
their  estimable  qualities  would  otherwise  secure.  Hence  others 
can  never  look  straight  before  them,  never  see  the  point,  and 
have  no  difficulties  in  the  most  difficult  subjects.  Others  are 
hopelessly  obstinate  and  prejudiced,  and,  after  they  have  been 
a  from  their  opinions,  return  to  them  the  next  moment 
without  even  an  attempt  to  explain  why.  Others  are  so  intem- 
perate and  intractable  that  there  is  no  greater  calamity  for  a 
good  cause  than  that  they  should  get  hold  of  it.  ...  I  am  refer- 
ring to  an  evil  which  is  forced  upon  us  in  every  railway  car- 
riage, in  every  coffee-room  or  table-d? hotc,  in  every  mixed 
company.1 

Argumentation  is  not  contentiousness.  At  the  outset  it 
should  be  understood  that  argumentation  is  not  what 
too  many  people  think  it,  —  contentiousness,  that  is,  dis- 
cussion carried  on  "  with  no  real  expectation  of  elian^in^ 
anv«inr's  opinion.  Such  are  most  of  the  partisan  speeches 
in  legislative  bodies:  speeches  for  or  against  a  tariff  or 
other  party  measure  are  in  most  cases  merely  attempts  to 
I  .in  the  .-I  her  side  in  a  hole;  to  establish  such  a  dilemma  as 
will  make  the  majority  or  the  minority,  as  the  case  may  be, 
appear  inconsistent  or  absurd,  or  to  show  them  up  as  the 
foes  of  honest  labor.  In  such  kind  of  argument  the  height 
of  success  is  to  make  it  indecent  for  the  majority  to  pro- 
ceed ;  if  the  majority  is  really  solid,  such  success  is  rare. 
So  the  common  run  of  stump  speeches,  which  pass  by  the 
name  of  argument,  are  argumentative  only  in  so  far  as  they 
are  efforts  to  rouse  the  voters  from  indifference.  In  short, 

1  Idea  of  University.  Newman.  Preface,  pp.  xvH-xviii.  Longman*, 
Green  &  Co.  1888. 


ARGUMENTATION  IS  NOT  CONTENTIOUSNESS       3 

many  modes  of  speech  are  contentious  which  are  not  argu- 
ment. When  you  look  for  the  reason  why  they  do  not  rise 
to  such  dignity,  you  will  find  that  it  is  because  they  are 
not  expository.  For  the  essential  part  of  every  argument 
which  is  worthy  of  the  name  is  that  it  offers  to  the 
reader  an  explanation  of  the  facts,  a  theory  or  a  policy, 
better,  more  rational,  more  thorough,  or  more  for  his  per- 
sonal advantage  —  than  that  which  he  or  somebody  else 
bftj*  maintained."  l 

The  following  newspaper  comment  on  part  of  President 
Roosevelt's  letter  accepting  the  presidential  nomination, 
1904,  illustrates  contentiousness. 

The  President  has  bat  little  to  say  on  changes  in  our 
currency  laws.  It  is  all  covered  in  six  lines,  which  run  as 
follows  :  "  The  record  of  the  last  seven  years  proves  that  thfe 
party  now  in  power  can  be  trusted  to  take  the  additional 
action  necessary  to  improve  and  strengthen  our  monetary 
system,  and  that  our  opponents  cannot  be  so  trusted."  It  may 
be  noted  that  the  President  goes  back  only  seven  years ;  evi- 
dently even  he  admits  that  prior  to  that  his  party  was  almost 
as  untrustworthy  as  its  political  opponents.  His  party  cer- 
tainly did  not  have  any  leader  who  could  be  trusted  to  labor 
as  diligently  and  efficiently  for  the  retention  of  the  gold 
standard  as  the  Democratic  President,  Grover  Cleveland. 

The  words  "  improve  and  strengthen,"  which  the  President 
uses,  may,  like  charity,  cover  a  multitude  of  sins.  He  takes 
no  definite  stand  either  for  or  against  the  numerous  schemes 
for  currency  inflation  that  have  been  proposed  by  Republican 
secretaries  of  the  treasury  in  the  last  two  administrations. 
Does  "  improve  and  strengthen  "  mean  a  declaration  in  favor 
of  asset  currni,  \  /  If  so,  the  gold  standard  is  far  safer  in 

i  The  Formj  of  Pro*  Literature.  J.  H.  Gardiner,  pp.  61-62.  Charles 
Scribner't  SODA.  1901. 


4  THE  NATURE  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

the  control  of  Judge  Parker.  Or  'does  it  mean  that  the  Presi- 
dent has  no  views  of  his  own  worth  expressing  on  the  cur- 
rency and  that  he  merely  included  this  one  sentence  in  his 
letter  so  that  he  might  later  adopt  the  policy  outlined  for 
him  by  the  Republican  members  of  the  Senate  finance  com- 
mittee ?  Those  senators,  it  may  be  remembered,  labored  all 
through  the  summer  of  1903  to  map  out  a  policy  that  would 
be  acceptable  to  the  banking  interests  and  at  the  same  time 
not  be  antagonized  by  those  who  do  not  care  to  see  the  govern- 
ment grant  further  privileges  to  the  banks.  We  made  the 
prediction  at  that  time  that  no  financial  legislation  would  be 
enacted  prior  to  the  national  election  of  1904.  After  that 
election,  however,  if  the  Republicans  are  continued  in  power, 
an  attempt  will  unquestionably  be  made  to  change  our  finan- 
cial laws,  and  if  the  changes  should  run  in  the  line  proposed 
by  the  Republican  secretaries  of  the  treasury,  they  might  easily 
prove  a  serious  menace  to  our,  currency.  Yes,  even  to  the 
retention  of  the  gold  standard. 

Compare  the  contentiousness  of  the  preceding  with  this 
strictly  argumentative  excerpt  from  a  speech  of  Carl  Schurz. 

Mark  well  that  all  these  evil  consequences  are  ascribed  to 
the  demonetization  of  silver  in  the  United  States  alone  —  not 
to  its  demonetization  anywhere  else.  This  is  to  justify  the 
presentation,  as  a  sufficient  remedy,  of  the  free  coinage  of 
silver  in  the  United  States  alone,  "  without  waiting  for  the  aid 
or  consent  of  any  other  nation."  This  platform  is  amplified 
by  free-coinage  orators,  who  tell  us  that  the  act  of  1873, 
called  "  the  crime  of  1873,"  has  surreptitiously  "  wiped  out " 
one  half  of  the  people's  money,  namely,  silver ;  that  in  conse- 
quence the  remaining  half  of  our  metallic  money,  namely,  gold, 
as  a  basis  of  the  whole  financial  structure,  has  to  do  the  same 
business  that  formerly  was  done  by  gold  and  silver  together; 
that  thereby  gold  has  risen  to  about  double  its  former  purchas- 
ing power,  the  gold  dollar  being  virtually  a  200-cent  dollar; 


ARGUMENTATION  IS  NOT  CONTENTIOUSNESS        5 

that  the  man  who  produces  things  for  sale  is  thus  being  robbed 
of  half  the  price,  while  debts  payable  on  the  gold  basis  have 
become  twice  as  heavy,  and  that  this  fall  of  prices  and  increase 
of  burdens  is  enriching  the  money  changers  and  oppressing 
the  people. 

Are  these  complaints  well  founded  ?  Look  at  facts  which 
nobody  disputes.  That  there  has  been  a  considerable  fall  in 
the  prices  of  many  articles  since  1873  is  certainly  true.  But 
was  this  fall  caused  by  the  so-called  demonetization  of  silver 
through  the  act  of  1873  ?  NoWj  not  to  speak  of  other  periods 
of  our  history,  such  as  the  period  from  1846  to  1851,  every- 
body knows  that  there  was  a  considerable  fall  of  prices,  not 
only  as  to  agricultural  products  —  cotton,  for  instance,  dropped 
from  $1  a  pound  in  1864  to  17  cents  in  1871  —  but  in  many 
kinds  of  industrial  products,  before  1873.  What  happened 
before  1873  cannot  have  been  caused  by  what  happened  in 
1873.  This  is  clear.  The  shrinkage  after  1873  may,  there- 
fore, have  been  caused  by  something  else. 

Another  thing  is  equally  clear.  Whenever  a  change  in 
the  prices  of  commodities  is  caused  by  a  change  in  supply  or 
demand,  or  both,  then  it  may  affect  different  articles  differ- 
ently. Thus  wheat  may  rise  in  price,  the  supply  being  propor- 
tionately short,  while  at  the  same  time  cotton  may  decline  in 
price,  the  supply  being  proportionately  abundant.  But  when 
a  change  of  prices  takes  place  in  consequence  of  a  great  change 
in  the  purchasing  power  of  the  money  of  the  country,  espe- 
cially when  that  change  is  sudden,  then  the  effect  must  be 
equal,  or  at  least  approximately  so,  as  to  all  articles  that  are 
bought  or  sold  with  that  money.  If  by  the  so-called  demon- 
etization of  silver  in  1873  the  gold  dollar,  or  the  dollar  on  the 
gold  basis,  became  a  200-cent  dollar  at  all,  then  it  became  a 
200-cent  dollar  at  once  and  for  everything.  It  could  not  possi- 
bly be  at  the  same  time  a  200-cent  dollar  for  wheat  and  a  120- 
cent  dollar  for  coal,  and  a  150-cent  dollar  for  cotton,  and  a 
100-cent  dollar  for  corn  or  for  shovels.  I  challenge  any  one 
to  gainsay  this. 


6  THE  NATURE  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

• 

Now  for  the  facts.  The  act  of  1873  in  question  became  a 
law  on  the  12th  of  February.  What  was  the  effect  ?  Wheat, 
rye,  oats,  and  corn  rose  above  the  price  of  1872,  while  cotton 
declined.  In  1874  wheat  dropped  a  little ;  corn  made  a  jump 
upward ;  cotton  declined ;  oats  and  rye  rose.  In  1875  there 
was  a  general  decline.  In  1876  there  was  a  rise  in  wheat  and 
a  decline  in  corn,  oats,  rye,  and  cotton.  In  1877  there  was 
another  rise  in  wheat  carrying  the  price  above  that  of  1870 
and  up  to  that  of  1871,  years  preceding  the  act  of  1873.  Evi- 
dently so  far  the  200-cent  dollar  had  not  made  its  mark  at  all. 
But  I  will  admit  the  possible  plea,  that,  as  they  say,  the  act 
of  1873  having  been  passed  in  secret,  people  did  not  know 
anything  about  it,  and  prices  remained  measurably  steady,  in 
ignorance  of  what  dreadful  things  had  happened.  If  so,  then 
it  would  appear  that,  if  the  knowing  ones  had  only  kept  still 
about  it,  the  gold  dollar  would  have  modestly  remained  a  100- 
cent  dollar,  and  nobody  would  have  been  hurt.  But,  seriously 
speaking,  it  may  be  said  that  when  the  act  of  1873  was  passed 
we  were  still  using  exclusively  paper  money;  that  neither  gold 
nor  silver  was  in  circulation,  and  that  therefore  the  demon- 
etization would  not  be  felt.  Very  well.  But  then  in  1879 
specie  payments  were  resumed.  Metallic  money  circulated 
again.  And,  more  than  that,  the  cry  about  "  the  crime  of 
1873"  resounded  in  Congress  and  in  the  country.  Then,  at 
last  the  200-cent  gold  dollar  had  its  opportunity.  Prices 
could  no  longer  plead  ignorance.  What  happened?  In  1880 
wheat  rose  above  the  price  of  1879,  likewise  corn,  cotton,  and 
oats.  In  1881  wheat  rose  again,  also  corn,  oats,  and  cotton. 
In  1882  wheat  and  cotton  declined,  while  corn  and  oats  rose. 
The  reports  here  given  are  those  of  the  New  York  market. 
They  may  vary  somewhat  from  the  reports  of  farm  prices,  but 
they  present  the  rises  and  declines  of  prices  with  substantial 
correctness. 

These  facts  prove  conclusively  to  every  sane  mind  that  for 
nine  years  after  the  act  of  1873  —  six  years  before  and  three 
years  after  the  resumption  of  specie  payments  —  the  prices  ot 


CONVICTION  AND  PERSUASION  DISTINGUISHED     7 

the  agricultural  staples  mentioned,  being  in  most  instances 
considerably  above  1860,  show  absolutely  no  trace  of  any 
such  effect  as  would  have  been  produced  upon  them  had  a 
great  and  sudden  change  in  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
money  of  the  country  taken  place ;  that  it  would  be  childish 
to  pretend  that  but  for  the  act  of  1873  those  prices  would  be 
100,  or  50,  or  25,  or  10  per  cent  higher ;  and  that,  therefore, 
all  this  talk  about  the  gold  dollar  having  become  a  200-cent 
dollar,  or  a  150-cent  dollar,  or  a  125-cent  dollar,  is  —  pardon 
the  expression  —  arrant  nonsense.1 

Conviction  and  persuasion  distinguished.  In  brief,  argu- 
mentation is  the  art  of  ]>r<><liiring  in  the  mind  of  another 
person  acceptance  of  ideas  held  true  by  a  writer  or  speaker, 
and  of  inducing  the  other  person,  if  necessary,  to  act  in 
consequence  of  his  acquired  belief.  The  chief  desiderata 
in  argumentation  are  power  to  think  clearly  and  power 
so  to  present  one's  thought  as  to  be  both  convincing  and 
persuasive.V  Convirtion  aims  <>nly  to  produce  agreement 
between  writer  and  ivadrr;  persuasion  aims  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  process  of  conviction  or  to  produce  action  as 
-ult  of  conviction.  In  pure  conviction  one  appeals 
only  t<i  tin-  intellect  of  a  ivader  by  clear  and  cogent  reason- 
ing. In  persuasion  one  may  produce  desired  action  either 
by  arousing  emotion  in  regard  to  the  ideas  set  forth  or  by 
adapting  the  presentation  of  one's  case  as  a  whole  or  in 
part  to  special  interests,  prejudices,  or  idiosyncrasies  of  a 
reader.  Pure  conviction  is  best  illustrated  by  the  demon- 
stration of  some  theorem  in  geometry,  —  as  that  the  square 
of  the  hypotenuse  of  a  right-angled  triangle  is  equal  to 
the  sum  of  the  squares  of  the  other  two  sides.  Here  all 

1  Speech  before  American  Honest  Money  League,  Chicago,  September  5, 
1890t  Carl  Schurz. 


8  THE  NATURE  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

the  explanation  of  truth  given,  that  is,  all  the  "proof," 
appeals  solely  to  the  intellect,  and  rests  for  its  force  on 
truths  already  known  to  the  reader  or  acceptable  as  soon 
as  properly  stated.  But  this  kind  of  demonstration  of 
truth  is  clearly  not  argumentation  in  the  ordinary  use  of 
the  word,  for  in  everyday  life  it  can  be  duplicated  only 
when  the  demonstrator  moves  freely,  as  in  geometry, 
through  a  number  of  related  ideas  or  principles,  as  true 
for  his  reader  as  for  him,  to  a  fresh  application  of  one  of 
the  ideas  or  principles  so  clearly  stated  that  it  is  at  once 
convincing.  This  set  of  conditions  may  at  times  be  found 
in  the  world  of  science  among  a  group  of  men  in  whom 
all  other  interests  and  emotions  are  subordinated  to  eager 
desire  for  truth,  but  ordinarily  the  people  with  whom  we 
argue  have  many  prejudices  or  idiosyncrasies  which  make 
it  difficult  to  develop  our  case  unobstructed.1 

1  The  following  illustrates  an  attempt  to  use  the  process  of  conviction 
only.  "  Madame  Blavatsky  was  accused  of  having  forged  letters  from  a 
mysterious  being  named  Root  Hoomi  which  were  wont  to  drift  out  of 
methetherial  space  into  the  common  atmosphere  of  drawing-rooms.  A 
number  of  Koot  Hoomi's  later  epistles,  with  others  by  Madame  Blavatsky, 
were  submitted  to  Mr.  Nethercliffe,  the  expert,  and  to  Mr.  Sims  of  the 
British  Museum.  Neither  expert  thought  that  Madame  Blavatsky  had 
written  the  letters  attributed  to  Koot  Hoomi.  But  Dr.  Richard  Hodgson 
and  Mrs.  Sidgwick  procured  earlier  letters  by  Koot  Hoomi  and  Madame 
Blavatsky.  They  found  that,  in  1878,  and  1879,  the  letter  d,  as  written 
in  English,  occurred  210  times  as  against  the  German  d,  805  times.  But 
in  Madame  Blavatsky 's  earlier  hand  the  English  d  occurred  but  16  times, 
to  2200  of  the  German  d.  The  lady  had,  in  this  and  other  respects, 
altered  her  writing,  which  therefore  varied  more  and  more  from  the  hand 
of  Koot  Hoomi.  Mr.  Nethercliffe  and  Mr.  Sims  yielded  to  this  and  other 
proofs :  and  a  cold  world  is  fairly  well  convinced  that  Koot  Hoomi  did 
not  write  his  letters.  They  were  written  by  Madame  Blavatsky."  The 
Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart.  A.  Lang.  pp.  278-279.  Longmans,  Green  & 
Co.  1901. 

The  way  in  which  prejudice  or  idiosyncrasy  might  make  it  impossible 
to  produce  any  effect  with  the  paragraph  just  quoted  will  be  seen  if  it  be 


CONVICTION  AND  PERSUASION  COMPLEMENTARY     9 

Conviction  and  persuasion  complementary.  Though  per- 
suasion, in  the  sense  of  emotional  appeal,  may  appear 
alone l  as  a  paragraph,  division,  or  even  a  complete  speech 

supposed  that  it  is  in  a  letter  to  a  man  who  has  a  prejudice  against  all 
deductions  from  handwriting,  believing  them  worthless,  or  to  a  person 
who  has  the  idiosyncrasy  that  his  handwriting  has  given  him  trouble 
because  it  is  so  much  like  that  of  several  friends.  In  either  case,  the 
whole  paragraph,  if  used  at  all,  must  be  rewritten,  with  reference  to 
the  prejudice  or  idiosyncrasy. 

1  The  following  appeal  forms  part  of  a  speech  which  is  almost  entirely 
persuasive.  In  the  course  of  the  debate  on  American  affairs,  November  18, 
1777,  Lord  Suffolk,  Secretary  for  the  Northern  Department,  urged  that 
the  1 1 nil  ins  should  be  used  in  the  war  on  grounds  of  policy,  necessity, 
and  because  "it  was  perfectly  justifiable  to  use  all  the  means  that  God 
and  nature  put  into  our  hands.'1  In  protesting,  Lord  Chatham  said; 
"  These  abominable  principles,  and  this  more  abominable  avowal  of  them, 
demand  the  most  decisive  indignation.  I  call  upon  that  right  reverend 
bench,  those  holy  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  pious  pastors  of  our 
Chuivh-  I  o<  injure  them  to  join  in  the  holy  work,  and  vindicate  the 
religion  of  their  God.  I  appeal  to  the  wisdom  and  the  law  of  this  learned 
bench  to  defend  and  support  the  justice  of  their  country.  I  call  upon  the 
Bish<  >ps  to  interpose  the  unsullied  sanctity  of  their  lawn ;  upon  the  learned 
Judges,  to  interpose  the  purity  of  their  ermine,  to  save  us  from  this  pollu- 
tion. I  call  upon  the  honor  of  your  Lordships  to  reverence  the  dignity 
of  your  ancestors,  and  to  maintain  your  own.  I  call  upon  the  spirit  and 
humanity  of  my  country  to  vindicate  the  national  character.  I  invoke 
the  genius  of  the  Constitution.  From  the  tapestry  that  adorns  these  walls, 
the  immortal  ancestor  of  this  noble  lord  frowns  witn  indignation  at  the 
disgrace  of  his  country.  In  vain  he  led  your  victorious  fleets  against  the 
boasted  Armada  of  Spain ;  in  vain  he  defended  and  established  the  honor, 
the  liberties,  the  religion  —  the  Protestant  religion  —  of  this  country, 
against  the  arbitrary  cruelties  of  Popery  and  the  Inquisition,  if  these 
more  than  popish  cruelties  and  inquisitorial  practices  are  let  loose  among 
us  —  to  turn  for.th  into  our  settlements,  among  our  ancient  connections, 
friends,  and  relations,  the  merciless  cannibal,  thirsting  for  the  blood  of 
man,  woman,  and  child  !  to  send  forth  the  infidel  savage  —  against  whom  ? 
against  your  Protestant  brethren  ;  to  lay  waste  their  country,  to  desolate 
their  dwellings,  and  extirpate  their  race  and  name  with  these  horrible  hell- 
hounds of  savage  war — hell-hounds,  I  say,  of  savage  war  !  Spain  armed 
herself  with  bloodhounds  to  extirpate  the  wretched  natives  of  America, 
and  we  improve  on  the  inhuman  example  even  of  Spanish  cruelty ;  we 


10  THE  NATURE  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

or  article,  conviction,  except  in  paragraphs,  very  rarely 
appears  without  persuasion.  Really,  as  the  definition  of 
persuasion  already  given  suggests,  the  two  are  comple- 
mentary, one  being  the  warp,  the  other  the  woof  of  argu- 
mentation. He  who  addresses  the  intellect  only,  leaving 
the  feelings,  the  emotions,  untouched,  will  probably  be  dull, 
for  his  work  will  lack  warmth  and  color ;  and  he  will  not 
produce  action,  for  to  accept  something  as  true  does  not, 
in  nearly  all  cases,  mean  to  act  promptly  or  steadily  on 
that  idea.  He  who  only  persuades  runs  the  dangers  of  all 
excited  action:  that  it  is  liable  to  stop  as  suddenly  as  it 
began,  leaving  no  principle  of  conduct  behind  ;  and  is  liable 
to  cease  at  any  moment  before  a  clear  and  convincing  state- 
ment of  the  reasons  why  such  conduct  is  ill-judged.1  Ideal 
argumentation  would,  then,  unite  perfection  of  reasoning, 
that  is,  complete  convincingness,  with  perfection  of  per- 
suasive power  —  masterly  adaptation  of  the  material  to 
interests,  prejudices,  and  idiosyncrasies  of  the  audience, 
combined  with  excitation  of  the  emotions  to  just  the  extent 
necessary  for  the  desired  ends.  The  history  of  argumen- 
tation shows  that  usually  conviction  is  preceded  or  fol- 
lowed by  persuasion,  and  that  often  the  very  exposition 

turn  loose  these  savage  hell-hounds  against  our  brethren  and  countrymen 
in  America,  of  the  same  language,  laws,  liberties,  and  religion,  endeared 
to  us  by  every  tie  that  should  sanctify  humanity."  For  the  whole  speech 
see  Appendix. 

1  The  first  part  of  the  speech  of  Antony  (Julius  Caesar,  III,  2)  is  vivid 
and  stirring,  and  Antony  takes  care  not  to  cease  until  the  mob  has  found 
an  object  upon  which  to  vent  ita  excitement ;  but  had  Brutus,  instead  of 
balancing  clauses  and  dealing  in  vague  statements  as  to  Caesar's  wrong- 
doing, shown  cogently  wherein  his  power  was  dangerous  to  Rome,  Antony's 
w«>r«ls  would  have  lost  a  large  part  of  their  force.  Antony,  with  nothing 
against  him  except  vague  charges,  skillfully  turned  from  these  to  stirring 
the  hearts  of  his  hearers  by  bringing  out  whatever  in  the  life  and  the  face 
of  Caesar  could  move  their  sympathies. 


THE  DIVISIONS  OF  AN  ARGUMENT  11 

which  convinces  is  made  also  to  persuade.1  All  argu- 
ment is  really  a  dialogue;  uthe  other  man"  is  always 
resisting,  trying  to  block  progress.  Therefore  a  writer 
must  remember  that  his  test  should  not  be :  Am  I  stating 
this  matter  PO  that  it  is  clear  to  me,  so  that  it  interests  and 
stirs  me?  but  Am  I  stating  this  matter  so  that  my  reader 
cannot  fail  to  see  what  I  mean,  and  must  be  stirred  by  my 
way  of  writing  because  I  have  so  well  understood  his  knowl- 
edge of  it,  his  feelings  about  it,  and  his  personal  peculiari- 
ties? In  brief,  let  a  writer  remember  "the  other  man"  in 
his  work,  and  he  can  hardly  forget  that  conviction  and 
persuasion  are  not  independent  but  complementary. 

For  purposes  of  instruction  it  will,  however,  be  con- 
venient to  treat  first  the  principles  which  underlie  suc- 
cessful conviction  and  then  those  which  make  for  effective 
persuasion;  but  a  reader  should  never  forget  that  this 
separation  is  artificial  and  made  wholly  for  pedagogic 
reasons. 

The  divisions  of  an  argument.  An  argument  normally 
has  three  divisions,  though  they  are  rarely  marked  as  such. 
They  are  the  Introduction,  the  Argument  Proper,  and  the 
Peroration.9 

1  A  fine  specimen  of  blended  conviction  and  persuasion  is  Henry 
Ward  Beecher's  Liverpool  speech  in  behalf  of  the  Northern  party  in  the 
Civil  \V;ir.     A  blending  of  the  two  methods,  with  the  emphasis  on  con- 
viction, but  so  subtle  that  the  persuasion  helps  to  conviction,  is  Lord 
Erskine's  "Defense  of  Lord  George  Gordon."     Specimens  of  Argumen- 
tation, pp.  164-178,  86-153.     Holt  &  Co.     For  skillful  handling  of  persua- 
sion, see  pp.  90,  94,  130,  161. 

2  Though  the  adjective  "forensic"  means  connected  with  courts  of 
law,  the  noun  "forensic"  has  recently,  with  teachers,  come  to  mean 
a  special  kind  of  written  exercise  in  argumentation.     It  is  treated  as 
if  it  could  and  should  drill  students  only  in  the  principles  of  analysis, 
structure,  and  the  selection  and  the  presentation  of  evidence.     Conse- 
quently it  is  likely  to  be  rigid  and  hard.     Jt  differs  from  everyday  work 


12  THE  NATURE  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

The  work  of  the  Introduction  usually  is  twofold,  —  to 
expound  and  to  persuade.  It  phrases  only  what  both  sides 
must  admit  to  be  true,  if  there  is  to  be  any  discussion,  and 
states  clearly  what  the  question  in  dispute  is.  The  final 
test  of  it  as  exposition  is  that  it  shall  give  i  reader  just 
the  information  which  will  make  clear  to  him  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Argument  Proper.  But  readers  may  be  indif- 
ferent to  a  subject,  hostile  to  it  or  the  writer,  or  likely  to 
be  made  hostile  in  the  development  of  the  argument.  In 
any  of  these  cases  it  will  evidently  be  helpful  at  the  outset 
to  overcome  or  decrease  the  indifference  or  hostility,  or  to 
offset  in  some  way  the  ill  feeling  the  discussion  may  cause. 
Herein  lies  the  persuasive  work  of  the  Introduction. 

The  Argument  Proper  also  has  a  twofold  work, —  to  con- 
vince by  giving  in  literary  form  the  evidence  for  which  the 
case  calls,  and  to  persuade  either  by  appeals  to  the  emotions 
in  regard  to  the  ideas  advanced  or  by  relating  these  ideas 
to  interests,  prejudices,  or  idiosyncrasies  of  the  readers. 

The  aim  of  the  Peroration  is  to  bring  the  argument  to 
a  full  and  perfect  close.    It  also  has  double  work  to  do,  - 
to  summarize  the  argument  developed  and  to  make  the  last 
persuasive  appeals  and  applications. 

Direct  proof  and  refutation.  The  material  with  which  a 
writer  develops  the  argument  itself  divides  into  Din •< -i 
Proof  and  Refutation.  The  first  signifies  the  material  of 

in  that  not  the  interest  of  the  student  but  the  will  of  the  teacher  deter- 
mines the  choice  of  topic  and  in  th:it  the  forensic  is  written  not  for  a 
general  audience  but  for  the  severe,  if  judicial,  criticism  of  the  instructor. 
It  is  the  work  of  a  teacher,  when  a  student  has,  by  writing  forensics, 
mattered  the  principles  just  mentioned,  to  show  him  how  an  intelligent 
use  of  the  principles  underlying  persuasion,  and  a  vigorous  style,  may 
transmute  the  rigid  forensic  into  a  readable,  persuasive  address  or 
article  successfully  adjusted  to  th*  prnili.iriticH  of  some  special  audience. 
For  methods  of  transmutation,  see  Chap.  V. 


TIIK    FIELD  OF  ARGUMENTATION  13 

all  kinds  with  which  a  writer  supports  his  own  opinions ; 
the  second  means  the  material  of  all  kinds  which  he  offers 
against  ideas  urged  in  disproof  of  his  main  thesis  or  of 
any  of  the  ideas  advanced  by  him.1 

The  field  of  argumentation.  For  clear  thinking,  the  first 
desideratum  in  good  argumentation,  it  is  imperative  to 
know  just  what  the  topic  under  discussion  means.  This 
lies  ascertaining  what  is  the  point  in  dispute,  and 
\vluit  ideas  must  be  proved  true  (direct  proof),  as  well  as 
what  ideas  shown  to  be  false  (refutation),  if  a  conclusion 
is  to  be  reached.  All  this  rests,  first,  oti  a  process  called 
analysis,  and  secondly,  on  study  of  the  rules  of  evidence 
wnTcndistinguish  good  evidence  from  bad.  But  when 
these  steps  have  been  taken,  appears  the  equally  important 
second  desideratum  in  good  argument,  —  presentation  of 
what  you  believe  so  that  it  shall  be  for  other  people  both 
convincing  and  persuasive.  For  success  in  this  it  is  neces- 
sary to  understand  structure  (brief-drawing),  the  presenta- 
t.«n  of  evidence,  and  the  principles  of  persuasion.  The 
first  step,  then,  in  argumentation  is  to  master  analysis. 

;:RCISES 

1.  Contentiousness.    Let  each  student  select  from  a  current  peri- 
odical or  newspaper  and  bring  to  the  class  room  a  brief  contentious 
speech  or  article. 

2.  Argumentation.    Discuss  with   the   class   how  some   of  these 

>ns,  or  others  chosen  by  the  teacher,   may  be  turned  into 
argument. 

3.  Conviction  and  persuasion.    Discuss  with  the  class  parts  or  the 
whole  of  Beecher's  Liverpool  speech2 or  of  Lord  Erskine's  "  Defense 
of  Lord  George  Gordon,"8  examining  especially  those  parts  in  which 
conviction  and  persuasion  are  blended. 

1  For  illustration  of  Direct  Proof  and  Refutation  see  Appendix. 

2  Specimen*  of  Argumentation,    pp.  164-178.  *  Idem.  pp.  86-163. 


CHAPTER  II 

ANALYSIS 
SECTION  1  —  WHAT  ANALYSIS  is 

The  true  stating  and  settling  of  a  case  conduceth  much  to  the  right 
answer  of  it.  —  Sir  Robert  Berkeley,  Justice  of  the  King's  Bench.  State 
Trials.  Howell.  Vol.  Ill,  col.  1090. 

Definition  of  analysis  in  argumentation.  Analysis  in 
argumentation  is  a  process  of  investigation  for  a  central 
idea  or  group  of  ideas.  To  analyze  well,  therefore,  one 
must  possess  the  power  to  make  "  an  instinctive  just  esti- 
mate of  things  as  they  pass."  Most  men  of  the  past 
and  the  present  distinguished  for  argumentative  skill  have 
had  this  power  so  to  grasp  a  subject  as  to  see  quickly  and 
correctly  the  issues  involved. 

The  importance  of  analysis.  This  analytical  power  was 
the  chief  cause  of  President  Lincoln's  early  success  as  a  law- 
yer and  his  later  astonishing  ability  to  understand  military 
situations  and  what  they  demanded.  Mr.  Lincoln's  mind, 
it  is  said,  "  ran  back  behind  facts,  principles,  and  all  things, 
to  their  origin  and  first  cause, — to  that  point  where  forces 
act  at  once  as  effect  and  cause.  He  would  stop  in  the 
street  and  analyze  a  machine.  He  would  whittle  a  thing 
to  a  point,  and  then  count  the  numberless  inclined  planes 
and  their  pitch  making  the  point.  .  .  .  Clocks,  omnibuses, 
language,  paddle-wheels,  and  idioms  never  escaped  his 
observation  and  analysis.  Before  he  could  form  an  idea 

14 


THE  IMPORTANCE   OF  ANALYSIS  15 

of  anything,  before  he  would  express  his  opinion  on  a 
subject,  he  must  know  its  origin  and  history1  in  substance 
and  quality,  in  magnitude  and  gravity.  He  must  know 
it  inside  and  outside,  upside  and  downside.  .  .  .  He  was 
remorseless  in  his  analysis  of  facts  and  principles.  When 
all  these  exhaustive  processes  had  been  gone  through  with 
he  could  form  an  idea  and  express  it,  but  no  sooner.  He 
had  no  faith  and  no  respect  for  'say  so's,'  come  though 
they  might  from  tradition  or  authority.  Thus  everything 
had  to  run  through  the  crucible  and  be  tested  by  the  fires 
of  his  analytic  mind ;  and  when  at  last  he  did  speak,  his 
utterances  rang  out  with  the  clear  and  keen  ring  of  gold 
upon  the  counters  of  the  understanding.  He  reasoned 
logically  through  analogy  and  comparison.  All  opponents 
dreaded  his  originality  of  idea,  his  condensation,  definition 
and  force  of  expression ;  and  woe  be  to  the  man  who 
hugged  to  his  bosom  a  secret  error  if  Lincoln  got  on  the 
chase  of  it.  ...  Time  could  hide  the  error  in  no  nook 
or  corner  of  space  in  which  he  would  not  detect  and 
expose  it."  2 

Of  Chief  Justice  Marshall's  mind  one  writer  says :  "  It 
is  not  very  richly  stored  with  knowledge,  but  it  is  so  crea- 
tive, so  well  organized  by  nature,  or  disciplined  by  early 
education  and  constant  habits  of  systematic  thinking, 
that  he  embraces  every  subject  with  the  clearness  and 
facility  of  one  prepared  by  previous  study  to  comprehend 
and  explain  it.  So  perfect  is  his  analysis  that  he  extracts 
the  whole  matter,  the  kernel  of  inquiry,  unbroken,  clean, 
and  entire.  In  this  process,  such  are  the  instinctive  neat- 
ness and  precision  of  his  mind  that  no  superfluous  thought 

1  Italics  not  in  original. 

2  Life  of  Lincoln.     Herndon  and  Weik.     Vol.  Ill,  pp.  594,  595. 


16  ANALYSIS 

or  even  word  ever  presents  itself,  and  still  lie  says  every- 
thing that  seems  appropriate  to  the  subject." l 

Judge  Story  says  of  Marshall :  "  It  was  a  matter  of  sur- 
prise to  see  how  easily  he  grasped  the  leading  principles  of 
a  case  and  cleared  it  of  all  its  accidental  incumbrances ; 
how  readily  he  evolved  the  true  points  of  the  controversy, 
even  when  it  was  manifest  that  he  never  before  had 
caught  a  glimpse  of  the  learning  upon  which  it  depended. 
Perhaps  no  judge  ever  excelled  him  in  the  capacity  to 
hold  a  legal  proposition  before  the  eyes  of  others  in  such 
various  forms  and  colors.  It  seemed  a  pleasure  to  him 
to  cast  the  darkest  shades  of  objection  over  it,  that  he 
might  show  how  they  could  be  dissipated  by  a  single 
glance  of  light.  He  would,  by  the  most  subtle  analysis, 
resolve  every  argument  into  its  ultimate  principles  and 
then,  with  marvelous  facility,  apply  them  to  the  decision 
of  the  case." 2 

But  it  is  not  only  the  lawyer  and  the  statesman  whose 
work  demands  a  mind  trained  to  see  all  that  a  question 
or  situation  involves.  In  these  days  of  complicated  and 
highly  organized  finance,  of  conflicting  responsibilities  and 
powers  of  city,  state,  and  nation,  the  business  man  or  the 
public-minded  citizen  needs  training  in  this  habit  of  close 
scrutiny  of  a  situation  and  careful  mastery  of  its  elements. 
The  power  to  analyze  such  subjects  quickly  and  correctly 
can  be  developed  by  training  and  practice  in  the  analysis 
essential  in  study  of  the  principles  of  argumentation. 

1  Sketches  and  Essays  on  Public  Characters.     F.  W.  Gilmer. 

2  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story.     W.  W.  Story.     Vol.  II,  p.  606. 


A  PROPOSITION  NECESSARY  IN  ARGUMENTATION     17 

SECTION  2  —  THE  FIRST  STEP  IN  ANALYSIS  —  PHRAS- 
ING A  PROPOSITION 

A  proposition  necessary  in  argumentation.  For  a  start 
in  description,  narration,  or  exposition,  a  term,  that  is, 
the  name  of  a  thing  or  quality,  is  enough,1  and  as  we 
regard  it  from  one  point  of  view  or  another,  we  describe, 
narrate,  or  expound  it;  but  we  cannot,  in  argumentation, 
start  with  a  term,  —  for  instance,  "the  Japanese  in  Korea." 
We  must  first  formulate  a  proposition  in  regard  to  the 
term,  —  that  is,  make  an  assertion  about  it,  as  "  Japanese 
control  of  Korea  is  desirable."  2  A  student  who  has  seen 
frequent  mention  in  newspapers  or  periodicals  of  the 
Japanese  in  Korea,  reciprocity  with  Canada,  the  literary 
influence  of  R.  L.  Stevenson,  or  the  style  of  Robert  Brown- 
ing, becomes  enough  interested  in  one  of  these  topics  to 
wish  to  know  more  of  it.  When,  therefore,  he  is  asked 
to  offer  a  subject*  for  argumentation  he  at  once  suggests 
the  topic  which  has  attracted  him.  But  each  of  the 
topics  mentioned  is  only  a  term,  not,  as  is  essential  in 

1  "  A  logical  term  may  consist  of  any  number  of  nouns,  substantive  or 
objective,  with  the  articles,  prepositions,  and  conjunctions  required  to 
join  them  together ;  still  it  is  only  one  term  if  it  points  out,  or  makes 
us  think  of  a  single  object  or  collection,  or  class  of  objects"  (Primer  of 
Logic,  Jevons,  p.  15).     A  horse  (the  animal),  the  horse  (the  genus),  the 
Aleutian  Islands,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  —  each  of  these  is  a 
term.     "  When  we  join  terms  together,  we  make  a  proposition  ;  when  we 
join  propositions  together,  we  make  an  argument  or  piece  of  reasoning" 
(Primer  of  Logic,  Jevons,  p.  12). 

2  It  is  often  convenient  to  take  as  a  heading  a  question,  as,  **  Will  elec- 
tricity displace  the  horse  as  a  means  of  locomotion?  "  for  this  permits  a 
writer,  if  he  feels  there  is  prejudice  against  him  or  desires  an  appearance 
of  complete  impartiality,  to  hold  back  his  own  conclusion,  not  committing 
himself  until  the  audience  is  quite  ready.     It  must,  be  clear  that  the  writer 
really  treats  either  "Electricity  will  displace  the  horse"  or  "Electricity 
will  not  displace  the  horse,"  —  an  assertion  in  either  case. 


18  ANALYSIS 

argumentation,  a  proposition.  The  necessity  for  a  propo- 
sition becomes  clear  if  it  be  remembered  that  the  first  end 
of  argumentation  is  to  produce  in  the  mind  of  another  per- 
son acceptance  of  ideas  held  true  by  a  writer  or  speaker, 
for  not  until  the  student  has  formulated  some  state- 
ment in  regard  to  the  Japanese  in  Korea  or  the  style 
of  Robert  Browning  will  it  be  clear  what  he  wishes 
his  reader  to  believe.  When,  indeed,  he  is  asked  what  he 
intends  to  prove  true  or  false  in  regard  to  his  term,  it  will 
probably  become  clear  that  as  yet  he  knows  too  little 
of  his  subject  to  say.  In  order  to  argue  about  one  of 
these  terms,  then,  a  student  must  first  examine  the  con- 
tent of  his  own  mind.  On  any  subject  of  the  hour  a 
student  hardly  has  a  vacant  mind ;  but  its  content  is  prob- 
ably as  much  prejudice,  vague  opinion  and  impression,  as 
clear-cut  opinion  that  rests  on  evidence  of  his  own  mind 
or  senses  or  of  the  minds  and  senses  of  other  people.  In 
clearing  his  mind  for  action  he  should  regard  as  immedi- 
ately useful  only  what  rests  on  his  own  evidence  or  that 
of  others.  Vague  opinions  and  impressions  he  should 
reserve  for  verification  in  his  reading ;  prejudices,  so  far 
as  he  is  conscious  of  them,  he  should  strive  to  disregard. 
This  process  cuts  down  decidedly  the  material  from  which 
he  will  start,  but  will  result  in  a  roughly  formulated  state- 
ment or  question  in  regard  to  the  term.  His  ideas  in  regard 
to  this  statement  or  question  will  later  be  filled  out  and 
verified  by  wide  and  critical  reading.  In  the  course  of  this 
reading  the  roughly  formulated  proposition  will  be  molded 
into  its  final  shape.  Without  such  scrutiny  of  his  own 
mind  and  such  wide  reading  a  student  cannot  safely  write.1 

1  This  self-scrutiny  before  beginning  debate  is  fundamental  in  most  of 
the  Socratic  dialogues.  See  Euthyphro  and  Gorgias,  Jowett's  PZafo,  3d 
ed.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  84-86,  331-339,  356-366. 


DANGERS  AVOIDED  BY  PHRASING  A  PROPOSITION    19 

Dangers  avoided  by  phrasing  a  proposition.  Care  to 
phrase  a  proposition  before  rushing  into  discussion  (1)  will 
avoid  writing  about  a  term  disconnected  statements  which 
can  prove  nothing ;  (2)  may  reveal  that  the  article  of 
an  opponent  —  some  self-assured  person  who  is  gaining 
credence  from  an  easy-going  public  —  is  but  a  set  of  state- 
ments about  the  terms,  not  at  all  an  argument  in  regard 
to  a  proposition ;  or  (3)  may  show  that  two  people  have 
got  into  a  controversy  without  any  distinct  statement  of 
the  question  they  are  debating.  In  the  third  case  each 
writer  probably  has  in  his  own  mind  a  proposition  which 
he  wrongly  assumes  is  that  which  his  opponent  is  consid- 
ering. The  debate  will  be  useless  until  the  two  men  have 
stated  their  proposition  and  discovered  that  they  do  not 
really  disagree  or  that  what  they  wish  to  debate  is  a 
proposition  different  from  either  of  those  with  which  they 
started. 

In  a  recent  political  campaign  prohibition  was  nominally 
the  subject  of  the  speeches  on  both  sides ;  but,  though  the 
speeches  of  those  contending  against  it  could  be  reduced 
to  the  proposition,  "  Prohibition  does  not  prohibit,"  the 
speeches  of  those  who  seemed  to  wish  to  support  it  could 
be  reduced  only  to  this  statement :  "  High  license  is  an 
immoral  method  of  treating  the  liquor  problem."  Of 
course  it  was  impossible  for  the  arguments  of  one  side 
to  refute  those  of  the  other,  for  there  was  no  common 
meeting-ground.1 

1  Three  suggestions  as  to  choice  of  topics : 

(1)  A  student  if  allowed  to  select  his  topic  should  choose  one  which 
interests  him.     Otherwise  his  work  is  sure  to  be  perfunctory  and  his 
attempts  at  persuasion,  because  of  his  want  of  interest,  lacking  in  sin- 
cerity. 

(2)  A  college  student  should,  if  possible,  find  his  first  topics  in  courses 
which  he  has  taken,  for  the  subject-matter  will  not  force  him  to  do  so 


20  ANALYSIS* 


SECTION  3  —  THE  SECOND  STEP  —  DEFINING 
THE  TERMS 

The  need  of  definition.  Careless  or  untrained  students, 
glancing  at  a  proposition  or  question  given  them,  assume 
because  the  terms  are  not  without  meaning  for  them  that 
they  can  dash  into  discussion  at  once.  Probably  the  terms 
of  the  question  recently  much  discussed :  "  Would  the 
route  for  an  interoceanic  canal  through  Nicaragua  or  the 
route  through  Panama  be  more  desirable  for  the  United 
States  ?  "  have  some  meaning  for  every  intelligent  colle- 
gian, but  it  is  unsafe  for  him  to  assume  in  consequence 
that  he  can  begin  arguing  at  once.  After  he  has  made 
sure  just  what  is  the  content  of  his  own  mind  on  the  topic 
as  he  understands  it,  he  must  by  investigation  ascertain 
what  meaning  or  meanings  the  public  in  its  discussion  of 
'the  question  lias  put  on  the  terms.  Readiness  to  dash  into 
discussion  before  the  speaker  or  writer  has  examined  his 
own  mind  on  the  question  in  hand  or  has  found  what  has 
been  the  meaning  given  the  terms  in  current  discussion 
is  the  chief  reason  why  "a  vague  tendency  and  a  loose 
approximation  to  what  is  right  is  all  we  can  hope  for  from 
miscellaneous  public  opinion."  * 

Few  debated  questions  have  but  one  possible  meaning 
and  that  unmistakable.  '"Is  a  constitutional  government 
better  for  a  population  than  an  absolute  rule  ? '  What  a 

much  research  work  as  topics  entirely  fresh  to  him.  As  a  result  he  can 
give  nearly  all  his  attention  to  the  preparation  of  his  material. 

(3)  After  a  student  understands  the  main  principles  of  analysis,  struc- 
ture, and  evidence,  he  should  select  some  topics  which  for  successful 
treatment  depend,  not  on  wide  reading,  but  on  his  own  experience  and 
thinking. 

1  Bagehot's  Works,  The  Age  of  Discussion. 


THE  NEED  OF  DEFINITION  21 

number  of  points  have  to  be  clearly  apprehended  before 
we  are  in  a  position  to  say  one  word  on  such  a  question ! 
What  is  meant  by  'constitution'?  by  'constitutional  gov- 
ernment '  ?  by  4  better  '  ?  by  4  a  population  '  ?  and  by  4  abso- 
lutism '  ?  The  ideas  represented  by  these  various  words 
ought,  I  do  not  say,  to  be  as  perfectly  denned  and  located 
in  the  minds  of  the  speakers  as  objects  of  sight  in  a  land- 
scape, but  to  be  sufficiently,  even  though  incompletely, 
apprehended,  before  they  have  a  right  to  speak.  4  How 
is  it  that  democracy  can  admit  of  slavery,  as  in  ancient 
Greece  ?  '  '  How  can  Catholicism  flourish  in  a  republic  ?  ' 
Now,  a  person  who  knows  his  ignorance  will  say,  'These 
questions  are  beyond  me ' ;  and  he  tries  to  gain  a  clear 
notion  and  a  firm  hold  of  them,  and,  if  he  speaks,  it  is  as 
investigating,  not  as  deciding.  On  the  other  hand,  let 
him  never  have  tried  to  throw  things  together,  or  to  dis- 
criminate between  them,  or  to  denote  their  peculiarities,  in 
that  case  he  has  no  hesitation  in  undertaking  any  subject, 
and  perhaps  has  most  to  say  upon  those  questions  which 
are  most  new  to  him.  This  is  why  so  many  men  are  one- 
sided, narrow-minded,  prejudiced,  crotchety.  This  is  why 
able  men  have  to  change  their  minds  and  their  line  of 
action  in  middle  age,  and  begin  life  again,  because  they 
have  followed  their  party,  instead  of  having  secured  that 
faculty  of  true  perception  as  regards  intellectual  objects 
which  has  accrued  to  them,  without  their  knowing  how,  as 
regards  the  objects  of  sight."  l 

For  students  of  the   Elizabethan  drama  the  terms  in 

"  Can  the   work   of   Francis    Beaumont    be    identified  ? " 

would   probably  need    no    definition,  but   for   a   general 

audience  there  might  be  need  to  explain  who  Beaumont 

1  Idea  of  University.     J.  H.  Newman,     pp.  498-499. 


22  ANALYSIS 

was,  the  nature  of  his  work,  and  why  discussion  in  regard 
to  it  arises.  Moreover,  how  can  we  hope  clearly  to  discuss 
"Is  Goethe's  Egmont  a  tragic  character?"  "Is  the  Utili- 
tarian theory  of  morals  defensible?"  "Could  the  Swiss 
referendum  be  advantageously  applied  in  the  United 
States?"  "Should  the  United  States  have  exclusive  juris- 
diction over  Behring  Sea?"  unless  we  first  decide  what 
is  meant  by  "  tragic  character,"  "  Utilitarian  theory  of 
morals,"  "  Swiss  referendum,"  "  exclusive  jurisdiction," 
"Behring  Sea,"  and  determine  on  what  grounds  we  shall 
judge  "defensible"  and  "advantageously  applied"?  Ex- 
amination of  these  terms  will  show  that  vagueness  and 
the  possibility  of  contradictory  interpretation  lurk  in  all 
these  terms,  traps  for  the  unwary  and  the  hasty. 

The  faults  of  definitions  from  dictionaries.  To  find  sat- 
isfactory definitions  is,  however,  by  no  means  an  easy  task. 
They  are  not,  usually,  to  be  found  in  dictionaries.  They 
should  be  sought,  except  in  special  cases,  through  investi- 
gation of  the  meanings  which  have  been  put  upon  the 
terms  in  the  course  of  previous  discussion  of  the  question. 
The  faultiness  of  dictionary  definitions  becomes  clear  if, 
in  treating  the  topic  "  Should  the  United  States  have 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  Behring  Sea?"  a  student  looks 
up  "  exclusive  jurisdiction "  in  a  dictionary  and  finds 
"  entire,  supreme  control "  as  its  equivalent,  for  how  much 
is  gained  in  clearness  ?  What  are  the*  limits  of  "  entire 
control";  by  what  law,  common  or  international,  are  they 
applied?  Just  how  much,  too,  is  meant,  geographically, 
by  "  Behring  Sea  "?  Does  the  term  in  this  case  cover  the 
straits  leading  into  the  waters  marked  on  maps  with  this 
name?  Here  are  many  questions  to  be  answered  only 
after  careful  examination  of  the  material  on  the  subject. 


+4 

FAULTS  OF  DEFINITIONS  FROM  DICTIONARIES      23 

This  frequent  insufficiency  of  a  dictionary  definition  is 
of  three  kinds :  too  often  for  what  was  vague  the  diction- 
aries substitute  only  a  generality ;  at  times  they  define 
only  for  the  specialist  accustomed  to  use  a  vocabulary 
incomprehensible  to  most  readers ;  and  many  questions  of 
the  day  give  particular  terms  special  or  even  momentary 
meanings  which  not  even  the  most  recent  dictionaries 
could  be  expected  to  contain.  As  an  illustration  of  the 
first  fault  take  a  dictionary  definition  of  "justified" 
"  defensible,  warrantable."  Does  substituting  either  syno- 
nym in  the  question,  "Are  the  Irish  justified  in  using 
illegal  measures  of  resistance  to  English  rule  ?  "  make  the 
proposition  clearer?  A  student  needs  to  know  on  what 
grounds  justifiability,  defensibility,  warrantableness  are 
to  be  judged.  The  following  illustrate  the  second  fault, 
definition  for  the  specialist :  G-ubernaculum,  "  the  posterior 
trailing  flagellum  of  a  biflagellate  infusorian "  ;  Network, 
as  defined  by  Samuel  Johnson :  "  anything  reticulated  or 
decussated  at  equal  distances  with  interstices  between  the 
intersections."  So,  too,  the  difference  between  the  diction- 
ary definition  and  the  momentary  or  special  meaning 
that  attaches  to  terms  is  illustrated  by  such  proposi- 
tions as  "Is  the  Lehmann  stroke  well  adapted  to  the 
conditions  of  American  rowing?"  or  "  Should  American 
colleges  adopt  Casper  Whitney's  proposal  to  substitute  a 
more  open  style  of  play  for  the  present  dose  formation  ? " 
When  the  first  question  was  brought  before  the  attention 
of  those  interested,  by  Mr.  Lehmann's  efforts  to  reform 
rowing  at  Harvard,  nothing  except  the  most  recent  hand- 
book could  have  been  expected  to  give  a  definition  of  the 
"Lehmann  stroke."  On  the  second  question  a  writer 
could  expect  little  assistance  from  any  dictionary  in  defining 


24  ANALYSIS 

what  was  meant  by  a  "more  open  style  of  play"  or  by 
the  "present  close  formation."  For  those  terms  he  had 
to  go  to  the  Outing  for  1903  and  the  other  periodicals 
in  which  Mr.  Whitney,  Mr.  Camp,  and  others  discussed 
the  football  of  that  time. 

The  following  instance  of  a  student's  careful  effort  to 
find  with  the  aid  of  a  dictionary  the  meaning  of  a  propo- 
sition shows  how  vague  and  futile  such  defining  is  likely 
to  be. 

Was  Webster's  Attitude  on  the  Slavery  Question,  in  the 
Seventh  of  March  Speech,  Statesmanlike  f 

In  the  beginning  it  is  obviously  necessary  to  arrive  at  some 
good  definition  of  the  word  "  statesmanlike."  In  defining  it, 
the  dictionary  tells  us  that  "  to  be  well  versed  in  the  arts  of 
government "  is  statesmanlike.  This  definition  does  not  by 
any  means  satisfy  us.  We  need  a  fuller  one.  The  conclusion 
that  we  reach  is  that  "  statesmanlike  "  means  the  man  who 
legislates  to  the  best  of  his  ability  for  the  interest  of  his 
country,  in  a  true  and  consistent  manner.  That  Webster,  in 
his  seventh  of  March  speech,  does  not  come  within  this  defi- 
nition we  shall  endeavor  to  prove. 

As  the  student  says,  when  we  substitute  for  "  statesman- 
like "  "  to  be  well  versed  in  the  arts  of  government,"  we 
are  unsatisfied  ;  not,  however,  because  the  definition  is  not 
full  enough  but  because  it  is  not  clear.  We  wish  to  know 
just  what  the  "  arts  of  government"  are,  and  what  is  meant 
by  "  well  versed  "  in  them.  The  student's  next  step  has 
several  faults.  He  gives  us  a  longer  definition,  but  will  it 
be  easy  to  determine  what  is  the  best  of  any  man's  ability 
or  the  interest  of  a  country  in  a  time  of  conflicting  inter- 
pretations of  that  interest?  Does  not  the  rather  vague 


FAULTY  DEFINITION  OF  «  STATESMANLIKE  "       25 

word  "true"  confuse  us?  Moreover,  how  the  student 
reaches  "  the  conclusion  "  that  "  statesmanlike  "  means  his 
last  definition  is  not  apparent,  and  we  wish  to  know  more 
about  the  links  of  thought  which  in  the  student's  mind 
connect  the  term  and  the  definition. 

If  we  try  to  better  this  definition  of  "  statesmanlike,"  as 
long  as  we  keep  to  books  not  bearing  directly  on  the  ques- 
tion in  hand  we  shall  not  find  our  task  successful.  If  we 
look  in  the  Century  Dictionary,  we  find  "  statesmanlike  " 
means  "  having  the  manner  or  the  wisdom  of  or  befitting 
a  statesman,"  but  "  statesman  "  is  no  clearer  than  "  states- 
manlike." A  statesman,  according  to  the  same  dictionary, 
is  a  "  man  who  is  versed  in  the  art  of  government "  —  the 
student's  vague  definition  —  "  and  exhibits  conspicuous 
ability  and  sagacity  in  the  direction  and  management  of 
public  affairs."  At  first  sight  that  last  clause  seems  help- 
ful, for  it  appears  possible  to  debate  "  Did  Daniel  Webster 
show  conspicuous  ability  and  sagacity  in  the  way  in  which 
he  directed  public  affairs  in  his  Seventh  of  March  speech?  " 

Instantly,  however,  we  face  this  question,  What  are  to 
be  the  tests  of  ability  and  sagacity  in  the  management  of 
public  affairs,  what  are  the  tests  in  this  case  ?  If,  contin- 
uing our  search,  we  come  upon  this  definition  by  James 
Russell  Lowell,  we  may  feel.-that  we  see  our  way  more 
clearly :  "  Undoubtedly  the  highest  function  of  statesman- 
ship is  to  accommodate  by  degrees  the  conduct  of  commu- 
nities to  ethical  laws,  and  to  subordinate  the  conflicting 
self-interests  of  the  day  to  higher  and  more  permanent 
concerns."  1  The  question  becomes  then  :  "  Did  Daniel 
Webster  in  his  Seventh  of  March  speech  do  anything  to 
accommodate  the  conduct  of  the  community  to  ethical 
1  Political  Essays,  J.  R.  Lowell,  p.  195.  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.  1890. 


26  ANALYSIS 

laws,  and  to  subordinate  the  conflicting  self-interests  of  the 
day  to  higher  and  more  permanent  concerns  ?  "  But  what 
"  ethical  laws  "  are  we  to  consider  ?  What  is  meant  here 
by  "  the  conduct  of  the  community  "  ?  What  were  "  the 
conflicting  self-interests  of  the  day  "  ?  What  are  we  to  take 
as  "  more  permanent  concerns  "  ?  We  can  ascertain  only 
in  one  way,  by  studying  the  history  of  the  question :  first, 
what  is  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion;  second,  how 
did  the  question  ever  come  to  be  discussed,  — •  that  is,  the 
origin  of  the  question ;  and  third,  how  has  the  discussion 
developed,  —  that  is,  what  has  been  said  pro  and  con,  the 
clash  in  opinion. 

The  safer  method;  definition  from  the  history  of  the 
question.  Investigation  of  these  matters  in  regard  to  any 
question  in  debate  will  produce,  rather  than  the  futile 
method  just  illustrated,  the  desired  definition  of  terms. 
Discussion  of  anything  except  the  meaning  of  a  term  or 
terms  is  possible  only  when  the  opponents  start  in  agree- 
ment as  to  what  the  terms  of  the  proposition  mean.  We 
must,  for  instance,  agree  on  the  meaning  geographically 
of  the  Nicaragua  and  Panama  routes  if  we  are  to  com- 
pare them.  Otherwise  we  must  first  discuss  just  what 
each  route  does-  mean,  and  after  two  preliminary  discus- 
sions reach  the  topic,  "Which  route  is  more  desirable  for 
the  United  States?"  Even  then  we  cannot  discuss  the 
question  phrased  unless  we  can  agree  as  to  the  tests  for 
"  desirable." 

The  immediate  cause  for  discussion ;  its  importance.  The 
conditions,  if  any,  which  give  a  proposition  special  inter- 
est at  a  given  time  must  always  be  carefully  considered, 
for  in  this  immediate  cause  for  discussion  new  or  unusual 
meanings  may  be  placed  on  one  or  more  of  the  terms,  and 


DIVISIONS  OF  HISTORY  OF  QUESTION  27 

consequently  the  proposition  originally  formulated  will  be 
seen  to  phrase  only  a  broad  question  which  has  had  interest, 
but  not  that  phase  of  it  which  is  of  immediate  interest.1 
Some  college  students  were  once  eager  to  write  on  this 
topic :  "  Should  there  be  strict  quarantine  regulations  in 
New  York  harbor?"  When  asked  what  they  meant  by 
"strict  quarantine  regulations,"  it  appeared  that  a  trans- 
atlantic steamship,  the  Normannia,  had  come  into  port  with 
some  cases  of  cholera  hi  the  steerage  and,  to  the  great  dis- 
tress of  the  cabin  passengers,  had  been  detained  in  quaran- 
tine for  several  days.  The  students  wished  to  discuss  the 
necessity  for  the  action  of  the  quarantine  officials.  Clearly, 
then,  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion  showed  at  once 
that  what  these  students  wished  to  discuss  was  not  "  Should 
there  be  strict  quarantine  regulations  in  New  York  har- 
bor ?  "  but  "  Was  the  treatment  of  the  passengers  on  the 
steamship  Normannia  unnecessarily  severe  ?  " 

The  origin  of  the  question  and  the  clash  in  opinion.  The 
students  in  discussing  this  latter  question  must  at  once 
ascertain  just  what  was  done  to  the  passengers  and  why. 
Evidently  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion  will  give 
information  on  both  matters,  and  show  as  well  that  the 
objectionable  measures  were  taken  by  quarantine  officers 
carrying  out  certain  health  regulations  because  of  the 
cholera  aboard.  But  just  what  the  quarantine  regulations 
in  New  York  harbor  were,  and  what  powers  in  enforcing 
them  the  officers  had,  must  be  sought  back  of  the  immediate 
cause  for  discussion  —  the  incident  of  the  Normannia 
—  in  the  origin  of  the  question,  that  is  the  conditions 
which  made  possible  any  question  on  the  enforcement 

1  For  the  importance  in  presentation  of  an  exact  knowledge  of  the 
immediate  cause  for  discussion  see  pp.  308-312. 


28  ANALYSIS 

of  quarantine  regulations.  While  the  students  loam  just 
what  the  regulations  and  the  powers  of  the  officer- 
they  will  discover  that  a  clash  in  opinion  arose  as  to 
whether  the  officers  in  carrying  out  admitted  regulati"ns, 
within  admitted  powers,  were  more  severe  than  the  con- 
ditions aboard  demanded.  That  is,  they  \vill  tind  in 
these  clashing  statements  a  definition  of  "unnecessarily 
severe."  Four  matters,  then,  the  students  must  understand 
before  they  can  properly  discuss  their  question  :  (1)  To 
what  extent  the  passengers  had  been  exposed  to  cholera ; 
(2)  What  was  done  to  them  ;  (3)  What  powers  the  oflirors 
had  who  detained  the  ship  in  quarantine;1  (•!)  By  what 
tests  the  students  may  decide  whether  the  measures  of 
detention  were  unnecessarily  severe.  As  has  been  seen, 
they  may  find  information  as  to  the  first  two  in  tho  imme- 
diate cause  for  discussion;  as  to  (3)  in  the  origin  <>f  tin- 
question;  and  as  to  (4)  in  the  clash  in  opinion.*  By  this 
method  of  investigation  the  students  have  fully  d< 
atment  of  passengers"  and  -  unnecessarily  severe."1 

1  Sometimes  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion  and  the  on  In  <  f  tin 
question  are  indistinguishable,  for  only  personal  interest  of  a  speaker  in 
a  time-honored  subject,  or  eagerness  in  tin-  public  to  hear  what  a  man  of 
note  has  to  say  on  the  subject,  is  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion. 
For  an  illustration  of  this  see  note  on  Professor  Huxley's  Pint  Lecture 
•lution,  Appendix. 

*  For  a  clash  in  opinion  see  Huxley's  statement  of  the  three  li 
eses  of  creation  in  his  First  Lecture  on  Evolut  <  imena  oj 
mentation,  pp.  60-86.     For  a  more  elaborate  specimen  see  the  f 

on  "The  Elective  System  in  Public  High  Schools,"  Appendix.  Tin- 
importance  of  the  clash  in  opinion  is  discussed  on  pp.  68-69  <>f  tins 
book. 

•  See  Burke's  definition  of  "party  "  and  the  way  he  arrives  ai 
his  defense  of  party  in  Thoughts  on  the  ('  -   Present  I 
Appendix.     For  other  illustrations  see  The  Lattimer  Case,  an 

>n  to  Professor  Huxley's  First  Lecture  on  Ewluti*  • !  i x . 


I  li  .  II.  (   UJ8E   FOR  PI  >\         29 

'•  Statesmanlike"  and  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion. 
If  this  process  is  followed  in  defining  the  terms  of  "  Was 
Daniel  Webster  in  his  Seventh  of  March  Speech  statesman- 
like ? "  the  result  will  be  much  more  satisfactory  than  in 
the  efforts  on  pp.  24-26.  If  it  1«  supposed  that  Professor 
M  Master's  Daniel  Webtter  baa  just  been  published 
sent  in  a  review  of  the  book  from  the  opinion  in  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph  may  be  taken  as  the  immediate  cause 
for  discussion:  — 

The  purpose  of  Webster  was  not  to  put  slavery  in  nor 
:  the  new  Territories,  nor  make  every  man  in 
the  North  a  slave-catcher,  nor  bid  for  Southern  support  in  the 
coming  election.     He  sought  a  final  and  lasting  settlement  of 
a  question  which  threatened  the  permanence  of  the  Union 
lie  Constitution,  and  Clay's  "comprehensive  scheme  of 
•ment"  he  believed  would  effect  this  settlement.     Th«- 
abolition,  the  anti-slavery,  the  Free-soil  parties  were  to  him 
but   *•  Northern   movements  that  would  come  to  nothing." 
The  great  debate  of  1850  he  regarded  as  idle  talk  that  inter- 
rupted consideration  of  the  tariff.     Never,  in  his  opinion,  had 
history  made  record  of  a  case  of  such  mischief  arising 
angry  debates  and  disputes,  both  in  the  government  and  the 
n  questions  of  so  very  little  real  importance.    Therein 
lay  his  fatal  mistake.     The  great  statesman  had  fallen  behind 

tin-  tiim-.v1 

That  is.  Professor  McMaster  does  not  believe  Webster 
was  arguing  in  favor  of  slavery  per  *&>  nor  bidding  for  the 
presidency,  but  implies  that  he  failed  himself  to  grasp  the 
real  economic  and  social  significance  of  the  problem  before 
him.  This  the  critic  sweepingly  denies,  declaring  that 

*  Daniel  Webster.  J.  B.  McMaster.  pp.  323-324.  The  Century  Com- 
pany.  1902. 


30  ANALYSIS 

history  has  shown  that  Webster's  tourse  was  thoroughly 
••  unstatesmanlike." 

••  Statesmanlike"  and  the  origin  of  question.  As  an  impli- 
cation is  hardly  a  satisfactory  definition,  it  will  be  well  to 
examine  the  origin  of  the  question  and  the  clash  in  opinion 
in  "  Was  the  Seventh  of  March  Speech  statesmanlike  ?  " 

The  South  and  the  North  were  in  bitter  strife  over  the 
territory  wrung  from  Mexico  —  the  one  to  open  it  to  slavery, 
the  other  to  keep  it,  as  Mexico  had  made  it  four-ami  -twenty 
years  before,  free.  .  .  .  Could  the  Constitution  be  spread  over 
the  Territories?  [Under  it  slaves  were  property  and  on 
the  Territories  must  be  protected.]  Calhoun  declared  it  ecu  Id 
be  so  extended;  Webster  maintained  that  it  could  not.  .  .  . 
The  attempt  to  extend  the  Constitution  failed  ;  no  go\*  rnnx-nt 
was  provided  for  California  or  New  Mexico,  and  the  question 
over  to  the  next  Congress.  At  this  the  South,  firmly 
united  on  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  new  Territories,  grew 
alarmed  and  angry.  The  old  spirit  of  disunion  again  am- 
The  failure  duly  to  execute  the  fugitive-slave  law,  the  "  n 
ground  railroad/'  the  activity  of  the  demand  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columl-ia. 
were  now  declared  un.-ndurable.  To  make  matters  worse,  a 
quarrel  broke  out  between  Texas  and  the  federal  government 
over  the  boundary  of  New  Mexico,  and  the  p« 

_:  matters  into  their  own  hands,  made  a  free-State  consti- 
tution, established  a  State  government,  and  asked  admission 
into  the  Union  as  a  free  State. ...    lly  [Congress  it]  was  to  be 
decided  whether  the  house  divided  against  itself  should  stand 
or  fall;  whether  there  should  be  within  the  limits  of  what 
was  then  the  United  States  one  people,  one  government,  one 
flag,  or  two  republics  —  one  of  States  where  black  men 
slaves,  the  other  of  States  where  the  negro  was  fi- •••.  ,  ,        I'-y 
the  middle  of  January,  1850,  [Clay's  compromise]  was  i 
and  one  cold  evening  he  called  on  Webster,  and  went  ov«-r  the 


ill  -PINION  31 

scheme,  and  asked  for  aid.  This  was  conditionally  promised, 
and  a  week  later  Clay  unfolded  his  plan  in  a  set  of  resolutions, 
and  at  the  end  of  another  week  explained  his  purpose  in  a 
great  speech  delivered  before  a  deeply  interested  audience. . . . 
Clay  having  spoken,  it  was  certain  that  Calhoun  would  follow, 
and  letter  after  letter  now  came  to  Webster  imploring  him  to 
raise  his  voice  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  and  speak  as 
he  had  never  done  before.  ...  On  the  4th  of  Man  h,  while 
Webster  was  still  at  work  on  his  speech,  Calhoun,  then  fast 
sinking  into  his  grave,  attended  the  Senate.  He  was  far  too 
feeble  to  bear  the  fatigue  of  speaking,  so  his  argument  was 
/ead,  in  the  midst  of  profound  silence,  by  Senator  Mason  of 
Virginia.  The  second  of  the  great  triumvirate  having  now 
been  heard,  it  soon  became  noised  abroad  t!  would 

reply  on  March  7 ;  and  on  that  day,  accordingly,  the  floors, 
galleries,  and  antechambers  of  the  Senate  were  so  densely 
packed  that  it  was  with  dihVulty  that  the  members  reached 
;  seats.1 

He  dwelt  upon  the  constitutional  rights,  which,  everybody 
knew, opposed  the  \Yilm<>t  Proviso  on  the  plea  that,  as  slave 
labor  would  not  pay  in  t!  West,  he  would  not 

tate  "  the  South   or  "  heedlessly  take  pains  to  reaffirm   an 
ordinance  of  nature,  nor  to  re-enact  the  will  of  God."     lie 
brought  all  of  his  logical  acumen  to  a  legal  defense  of  the 
ive  Slave  Law.* 

•Statesmanlike"  and  the  clash  in  opinion.  K\i<lently 
the  origin  of  the  question  provides  no  definition,  but  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  clash  in  opinion  does.' 

»  Daniel  Winter.    J.  B.  McMaster.     pp.  304-514.    The  Century  Co. 

*  Daniel  Webster.    N.  Hapgood.    pp.  105-106.    Small,  Maynard  &  Co. 

*  This  clash  in  opinion  is  intended  rather  to  represent  conflicting  state- 
ments just  as  they  might  come  in  the  way  of  a  student  than  the  result  of 
careful  sifting  and  ordering  of  the  opposing  ideas.    The  class,  guided  by 
the  instructor,  should  analyze  each  quotation  to  see  how  many  of  the 

it  supports,  and  whether  directly  or  indirectly. 


32  ANALYSIS 

The  speech  did  make  a  great  sensation,  and  for  a  while 
every  mail  brought  bundles  of  letters  of  praise  and  requests 
for  copies  of  it  Said  one :  "  I  was  highly  gratified  in  reading 
your  admirable  patriotic  and  powerful  speech  in  relation  to 
the  new  Territories.  It  was  a  bold,  independent,  and  digni- 
fied discharge  of  the  high  duties  devolved  upon  you.  The 
crisis  required  that  the  ablest  men  should  come  forth,  in  the 
majesty  of  their  strength,  and  rebuke  the  fanatics  and  dema- 
gogues throughout  the  laud  who,  by  their  mad  and  treasonable 
efforts,  have  basely  attempted  to  shatter  the  massive  pillars 
of  the  Union.  ...  A  fearless  and  noble  illustration  of  devo- 
tion to  the  stability,  prosperity,  and  glory  of  the  Republic/' 
Said  another:  "  It  bears  throughout  the  impress  of  one  lifted 
up  above  the  mists  of  passion,  prejudice,  and  faction,  surv* 
with  a  clear  vision  all  that  is  passing  below,  ami  truthfully 
stating  it  Divested  of  sectional  feeling,  forgetful  of  the 
character  of  a  special  representative,  the  words  of  truth  and 
solemnness  fell  from  the  lips  of  one  impelled  by  a  sense  of 
the  general  good."  Addresses  of  approbation  came  to  Webster 
from  all  sides.  "  The  clamor  for  speeches  South  and  \Y* 
incredible,"  he  wrote  his  son.  "Two  hundred  thousand  will 
not  supply  the  demand."  .  .  .  Compromisers,  conservative 
men,  business  men  with  Southern  connect  inns,  those  willing  to 
see  the  Union  saved  by  any  means,  rallied  to  his  support,  and 
loaded  him  with  unstinted  praise.  But  the  anti-slavery  men, 
the  abolitionists,  the  Free-soilers,  and  many  Northern  \\ 
attacked  him  bitterly.  ...  "By  this  speech,"  said  Giddings, 
"  a  blow  was  struck  at  freedom  and  the  constitutional  rights  of 
the  free  States  which  no  Southern  arm  could  have  given." .  .  . 
In  the  opinion  of  hosts  of  his  fellow-countrymen,  he  was  indeed 
an  apostate.  lie  had  changed  his  creed  ;  he  had  broken 

ast;  he  had  deserted  the  cause  of  human  liberty 
had  fallen  from  grace.  .  .  .     When  news  of  the  speech  reached 
Boston,  the  House  of  Representatives  were  debating  resolu- 

declaring  that  Massachusetts  c,« ml i!  ;n|>romise 

which  called  on  her  to  abandon  principles  fthfl  hud  so  firmly 


in;  IMON  3;J 

held  and  so  often  repeated,  and  here  too  Webster  was  con- 
demned in  vigorous  language.  ...  At  a  great  meeting  held 
in  Faneuil  Hall  to  condemn  the  conduct  of  Webster,  the 
Seventh  of  March  speech  was  described  as  "  alike  unworthy 
of  a  wise  statesman  and  a  good  man."  ' 

Emerson  said  of  »body  doubts  that  there  were  good 

and  plausible  things  to  be  said  on  the  part  of  the  South.    But 
is  not  a  question  of  ingenuity,  not  a  question  of  syllogisms, 
but  of  sides.     How  came  he  there  Hut  the  question 

which  history  will  ask  is  broader.  In  the  final  hour,  when 
he  was  forced  by  the  peremptory  necessity  of  the  closing 
armies  to  take  a  side,  did  he  take  the  part  of  great  principles, 
the  side  of  humanity  and  justice,  or  the  side  of  abuse  and 
oppression  and  chaos?'" 

The  very  attitude  taken  was  that  of  a  statesman  who  deems 
it  hi*  <!.:;>  to  stand  between  two  highly  excited  sections  of  a 
great  and  free  country,  whose  institutions  are  purely  popular, 
and  to  speak  in  terms  which  might  disappoint  the  exp 

own  particular  region.  There  has  been  no  similar 
example  of  moral  independence  exhibited  by  any  other  states- 
man in  our  annals,  ui  u  instances  at  all  resembling  those 

in  which  Mr.  Webster  at  this  time  stood Mr.  Webster  was 

accused  of  having  sacrificed  an  important  principle  with  which 
his  own  fame  was  identified,  because  he  refused  to  apply  to 
the  new  Territories  a  congressional  prohibition  of  slavery, 
although  he  demonstrated  that  it  was  totally  unnecessary,  and 
because  he  declared  that  he  would  observe  the  compact  that 
had  been  made  when  Texas  was  annexed  to  the  Union. 
To  impair  the  influence  of  Mr.  Webster's  great  speech,  by 
representing  him  as  guilty  of  extraordinary  inconsistencies  for 
the  sake  of  reaching  the  presidency  through  the  favor  of  the 

*  Daniel  ITatefcr.    J.  B.  McMaster.    pp.  316-321. 

*  Quoted  in  Daniel  Webster.    N.  Hapgood.    p.  107.     Small,  Maynard 
4  Co.     1890. 


34  ANALYSIS 

South,  became  one  of  the  ordinary  tactics  of  a  new  party.  .  . . 
The  people  .  .  .  should  calmly  weigh  the  moral  probabilities 
that  ought  justly  to  determine  the  question,  whether  the  pres- 
ent and  future  welfare,  or  his  own  political  aggrandizement, 
was  the  motive  that  animated  the  course  of  this  great  man 
from  the  7th  of  March,  1850,  to  the  close  of  his  life.1 

A  dispassionate  examination  of  Mr.  Webster's  previous 
course  'on  slavery,  and  a  careful  comparison  of  it  with  the 
ground  taken  in  the  7th  of  March  speech,  shows  that  he  soft- 
ened his  utterances  in  regard  to  slavery  as  a  system,  and  that 
be  changed  radically  on  the  polity  of  compromise  and  on  the 
question  of  extending  the  area  of  slavery.  [Mr.  Webster]  must 
be  judged  according  to  the  circumstances  of  1850.  .  .  .  The 
crisis  was  grave  and  serious  in  the  extreme,  but  neither  war 
nor  secession  was  imminent  or  immediate,  nor  did  Mr.  Webstar 
ever  assert  that  they  \\ere.  Rethought  war  and  secession  might 
come,  and  it  was  against  this  possibility  and  probability  that 
he  sought  to  provide.  He  wished  to  solve  the  great  proMnn, 
to  remove  the  source  of  danger,  to  set  the  menacing  agn 

>t.  He  aimed  at  an  enduring  and  definite  settlement, 
and  that  was  the  purpose  of  the  7th  of  March  sp«'«-,-h.  His 
reasons  —  and  of  course  they  were  clear  and  weighty  in  his 
own  mind  —  proceeded  from  the  belief  that  this  wretched 
compromise  measure  offered  a  wise,  judicious,  and  permanent 
settlement  of  questions  which  in  their  constant  recurrence 
threatened  more  and  more  the  stability  of  the  Union.  History 
has  shown  how  woefully  mistaken  was  this  opinion.1 

Mr.  Webster  in  a  speech  at  Buffalo,  May  22, 1857,  said  :  I 
felt  I  had  a  duty  to  perform  to  my  country,  to  my  own  reputa- 
tion; for  I  flattered  myself  that  a  service  of  forty  years  had 

1  Life  of  Daniel  Webster.     G.  T.  Curtis.     Vol.  I.     pp.  410,  41.", 
D.  Appleton  &  Co.     1870. 

«  Daniel  Webster.  H.  C.  Lodge,  pp.  821-822,  317.  Hoiighton.  M.illin 
A  Co. 


I  N>TATESMANLIK1.  JiLI     M.riNED         35 

given  me  some  character,  on  which  I  had  a  right  to  repose  for 
my  justification  in  the  performance  of  a  duty  attended 
some  degree  of  local  unpopularity.     1  thought  it  was  my  duty 
to  pursue  this  course,  and  I  did  not  care  what  was  to  be  the 
consequence."     Kufus  Choate  said :  "  Until  the  accuser  who 
charges  Daniel  Webster  with  baring  '  sinned  against  his  con- 
science' will  assert  that  the  conscience  of  a  public  man  may 
not,  must  not,  be  instructed  by  profound  knowledge  < 
vast  subject-matter  with  which  pulilir  life  is  conversant,  and 
will  assert  that  he  is  certain  that  the  consummate  science  of 
our  great  statesman  was  felt  by  Ai'nur//  to  prescribe  t 
morality  another  conduct  than  that  which  he  adopted,  and 
that  he  thus  consciously  outraged  that  *  sense  of  duty  which 
pursues  us  ever'  —  is  he  inexcusable,  whoever  he  is,  that  so 
judges  another? 

-  Un statesmanlike  "  as  defined  by  this  method.  Examina- 
tions of  all  these  charges  and  counter-charges  in  the  clash 
in  opinion  will  show  that  th.-y  may  be  reduced  to 
Webster  was  unstatesmanlike  in  the  7th  of  March  speech 
because  (1)  inconsistent;  (2)  not  honest,  in  that  he  favored 
the  plan  only  as  a  bid  for  Southern  support  for  the 
presidency;  (8)  he  entirely  misjudged  the  economic  and 
social  significance  of  the  great  problem  before  him.  Cer- 
tainly that  is  a  much  clearer  definition  than  dictionaries  and 
books  of  reference  gave  for  "  statesmanlike  " ;  it  arises  from 
the  discussion  itself,  and  consequently  does  not  require 
adapting  to  the  question  to  be  judged. 

The  advantage  of  definition  through  the  history  of  the 
question.  Dictionary  definitions  are,  then,  to  be  avoided, 
and  definitions  may  best  be  reached  by  this  investiga- 
tion of  the  history  of  the  question  through  immediate 

1  Quoted  in  )I>foter'«  Select  Speeches.  A.  J.  George,  p.  iz.  D.  C. 
Heath  &  Co.  1888. 


36  ANALYSIS 

• 

cause  for  discussion,  origin  of  the  question,  and  clash  in 
opinion.  The  advantage  of  this  method  is  twofold :  the 
definitions  usually  arise  from  the  question  and  need  not  be 
fitted  to  it ;  and  a  student  can  tell  quickly  whether  inability 
to  agree  with  his  opponent  on  the  meaning  of  a  term  or 
terms  makes  discussion  impossible  unless  he  first  establish 
the  soundness  of  the  meaning  he  wishes  to  give  one  or 
more  terms  as  compared  with  the  meaning  put  upon  them 
by  his  opponent.  It  is,  for  instance,  quite  conceivable  that 
passengers  on  the  Normannia  might  differ  as  to  what  was 
objectionable  in  their  treatment  or  as  to  the  extent  of  the 
illness  aboard.  If  there  was  a  clash  in  opinion  in  either 
case,  before  discussion  the  students  must  settle  just  what 
the  treatment  was  which  is  to  be  judged  as  necessarily  or 
unnecessarily  severe,  or  just  what  conditions  of  illness  were 
held  by  the  officers  to  justify  their  conduct. 

A  second  class  of  topics.  It  may  be  objected  that  this 
process  of  definition  is  possible  only  for  topics  on  which 
there  is  much  printed  matter,  and  that  many  topics,  though 
much  discussed,  do  not  get  into  print,  or  are  so  new  that 
there  has  been  practically  no  discussion  of  them.  Really 
the  second  group,  illustrated  by  such  topics  of  college  life 
as  "  Should  scholarships  be  awarded  on  a  basis  of  academic 
standing  irrespective  of  need?"  "Should  daily  work  in 
the  gymnasium  be  prescribed  for  Freshmen  ?  "  are  not 
materially  different  from  the  first  class  mentioned.  Though 
little  has  been  printed  about  them,  members  of  college 
faculties  have  often  discussed  them,  and  ,the  persons 
known  to  be  interested  in  such  subjects  should  be  treated 
as  books  and  publications  are  for  the  first  class  of  subjects. 
Indeed  any  student  of  argumentation  must  early  learn  that 
not  books  only  but  men  and  books  are  equally  to  be  his 


SECOND  AND  THIRD  CLASS  OF  TOPICS  37 

sources  of  information.  If,  then,  he  interrogate  men  known 
to  hold  opposing  views  on  the  question,  more  than  one  on 
a  side,  immediate  cause,  origin,  and  clash  will  promptly 
develop,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  needed  definition. 

A  third  class  of  topics.  Even  in  the  third  class — ques- 
tions not  before  discussed — definitions  may  best  be  reached 
apart  from  dictionaries.  Suppose  that  a  recent  biographer 
of  Chatterton  raises  for  the  first  time  the  question  whether 
Chatterton's  literary  forgeries  were  not  the  result  of  mad- 
ness. In  such  a  case  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion 
and  the  origin  of  the  question  are  one.  The  new  book 
will,  however,  give  the  origin  of  the  question  in  some 
account  of  the  forgeries  which  produce  discussion,  and 
will  state  or  imply  a  definition  of  madness.  A  reader  may 
feel  that  the  facts  do  not  completely  accord  with  madness 
as  defined,  but  in  that  case  he  has  accepted  definitions  of 
madness  and  of  Chatterton's  conduct  given  by  the  biogra- 
pher. He  may  feel  that  the  conduct  in  question  is  not 
properly  reported,  —  i.e.  defined,  —  in  which  case  he  will 
go  to  other  accounts  of  Chatterton's  life  at  the  period  in 
question.  He  may  accept  the  statement  of  conduct  but 
question  the  definition  of  madness.  In  that  case  he  will 
consult  articles  or  individuals  who  have  defined  madness, 
not  in  relation  to  this  case,  but  in  general  or  in  regard  to 
similar  cases.  In  any  event  he  will  consult  not  the  diction- 
aries but  specialists.  The  chief  difference  between  this 
kind  of  question  and  the  other  two  classes  is  that  in  it  the 
definitions  used  may  not  arise  from  the  question  itself, 

How  much  preliminary  definition  is  necessary.1  In  deter- 
mining how  much  definition  is  necessary  in  any  given  case 
vt  is  advisable  to  remember  the  essentials  of  any  good 

1  For  the  need  of  definition  in  the  Argument  Proper  see  pp.  137-141. 


38  ANALYSIS 

definition  :  clearness,  convincingness,  and  as  much  brevity 
as  the  other  two  qualities  permit.  The  definition  must  be 
clear  and  convincing,  not  merely  to  the  writer  but  to  his 
audience ;  for  the  aim  in  any  discussion  is,  of  course,  to 
make  the  interpretation  of  the  question  by  opponent  or 
audience  coincide  with  that  of  the  writer.  If*  at  the  start 
this  coincidence  of  interpretation  does  not  exist,  it  will  not 
be  difficult  to  find  the  particular  term  or  terms  which  are 
interpreted  differently,  and  these  are  all  that  must  be 
defined  satisfactorily  before  the  argument  itself  can  begin. 
Even  if  the  controversy  is  carried  on  by  letter  or  through 
the  press,  one  person  aroused  the  other  by  something  he 
said  or  wrote.  This  may  readily  be  reduced  to  a  proposi- 
tion and  the  meaning  given  its  terms  in  the  argument 
ascertained.  If  the  second  person  differs  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  a  term  or  terms,  he  should  clearly  show  why  before 
he  begins  to  argue  in  reply.  If  possible,  never  discuss  a 
topic  till  you  are  sure  that  you  and  your  opponent,  or  your 
audience,  agree  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  terms  of  the  propo- 
sition. Common  sense  and  practice  are  the  best  guides  in 
determining  the  amount  of  defining  needed,  for  evidently 
clearness,  convincingness,  and  brevity  in  a  definition  will 
vary  according  to  the  audience  addressed. 

The  position  of  the  man  who  launches  an  article  or  a 
speech  into  the  world  with  no  special  opponent  in  mind  is  that 
of  the  man  who  writes  for  or  addresses  a  very  large  audience. 
His  work  in  determining  to  what  extent  he  shall  define  his 
terms  is  much  more  difficult  than  that  of  the  man  writing  for 
or  speaking  to  one  other  person.  Often,  as  in  the  case  of  a 
magazine  article,  he  writes  for  an  audience  of  indeterminate 
size,  of  many  and  widely  differing  points  of  view,  some  of 
which  he  can  hardly  foresee.  Even  if  his  work  be  addressed 


HOW  MUCH  DEFINITION  IS  NECESSARY  39 

only  to  an  audience  of  a  hundred  in  some  hall,  there  will 
be,  probably,  several  grades  of  intellect  in  it  and  various 
degrees  of  knowledge  of  his  subject.  How  is  he  in  either 
of  these  cases  to  determine  what  terms  will  need  explana- 
tion, what  is  liable  in  the  proposition  to  be  misinterpreted  ? 
Putting  aside  for  a  moment,  as  far  as  he  can,  the  special 
knowledge  of  his  subject  that  makes  even  difficult  matters 
seem  to  him  rudimentary  and  self-evident,  he  must,  for  an 
audience  of  magazine  readers,  explain  those  terms  which 
he  thinks  will  be  vague  to  a  person  of  intelligence  and 
education  who  has  no  special  knowledge  of  the  subject  but 
is  willing  to  learn.  A  writer  may,  of  course,  range  from 
an  article  for  children  on  his  specialty  in  the  Youth's  Com- 
panion or  St.  Nicholas,  through  an  essay  on  it,  still  simple 
but  by  no  means  clear  to  children,  in  the  Harper,  the 
Scribner,  the  Century,  to  a  discussion  in  regard  to  it  for 
his  fellow-workers,  by  no  means  clear  not  merely  for  chil- 
dren but  even  for  the  average  reader,  in  the  Historical 
Review,  the  Psychological  Review,  or  Anglia.  Evidently 
the  preliminary  definition  required  in  treating  the  same 
subject  for  these  three  different  audiences  will  vary 
decidedly.  The  third  set  of  readers  will  need  definition 
only  of  those  terms  to  which  the  writer  gives  an  unusual 
meaning.  The  second  audience  will  need  more  definition, 
the  first  most  of  all.  Similarly  a  speaker  who  addresses 
an  audience  at  some  charity  organization  in  the  slums  of 
a  city,  a  large  gathering  of  people  in  a  popular  lecture 
course,  or  a  meeting  of  some  historical  or  scientific  associa- 
tion, will  vary  his  amount  of  preliminary  definition.  As  he 
enters  the  hall,  or  rapidly,  as  he  looks  over  his  audience, 
he  must  judge  its  probable  intellectual  status,  so  that  when 
he  speaks  he  may  increase  or  diminish  his  defining  as  the 


40  ANALYSIS 

conditions  in  the  audience  seem  to  warrant.  Practice  in 
such  work  will  soon  give  accuracy  of  judgment  as  to  the 
amount  of  definition  needed  in  popularizing  his  subject. 

Advantages  of  preliminary  definition  of  terms.  The 
advantages  of  this  preliminary  examination  of  the  terms 
of  the  proposition  to  be  debated  are  of  several  kinds. 
First,  it  goes  a  long  way  to  rid  the  entire  discussion  of 
vagueness.  Indeed,  if  a  writer  can  get  his  readers  to 
accept  his  preliminary  definitions,  he  is  well  on  the  road 
to  convincing  them  of  the  truth  of  his  main  thesis.  All 
the  introductory  portion  of  Professor  Huxley's  First  Lec- 
ture on  Evolution  illustrates  this.  He  so  states  the  problem 
of  the  creation  of  the  world  that  every  fair-minded  man 
must  admit  it  has  at  some  time  thus  presented  itself  to 
him.  Professor  Huxley  then  explains  the  three  possible 
hypotheses  so  simply  and  so  judicially  that  their  clearness 
and  his  fairness  must  be  granted.  Then,  because  nearly 
all  the  proof  to  be  used  to  refute  the  old  hypotheses  and 
to  support  the'  new  one  will  be  circumstantial  evidence, 
Professor  Huxley  carefully  explains  the  difference  between 
it  and  testimonial  evidence  and  why  the  popular  distrust 
of  circumstantial  evidence  is  unjustified.  .  Consequently, 
when  he  begins  to  argue,  every  reader  must  understand 
just  what  the  question  means  and  will  be  ready  to  admit 
all  that  he  has  said  thus  far.  Yet,  if  these  definitions  and 
distinctions  be  granted,  especially  the  value  put  upon  cir- 
cumstantial evidence,  the  reader  will  find  that  Professor 
Huxley's  conclusions  are  well-nigh  irresistible.1 

Secondly,  this  preliminary  examination  will  also  rid  the 
proposition  of  technical  terms.  By  it  topics,  both  scientific 

1  See  Appendix.  For  the  whole  lecture  see  pp.  60-85,  Specimens  of 
Argumentation. 


ADVANTAGES  OF  DEFINITION  OF  TERMS         41 

and  literary,  which  are  vague  only  because  technical  are 
cleared  by  the  substitution  of  terms  longer,  perhaps,  but 
more  generally  understood.  This  literary  topic,  "  Is  trans- 
verse alliteration  in  parisonic  antithetical  or  parallel  clauses 
the  indispensable  criterion  of  the  presence  of  Euphuism  ?  " 
—  a  question  based  on  an  affirmation  of  Dr.  Friedrich 
Landmann,  a  student  of  the  subject  —  needs,  as  a  critic 
has  said,  "  a  commentary  to  make  it  intelligible."  When  it 
is  expanded  by  aid  of  the  origin  of  the  question  as  given  by 
Dr.  Landmann,  it  becomes  clearer.  Euphuism  is  the  name 
given  to  the  style  of  John  Lyly  from  his  novel,  Euphues, 
His  Anatomie  of  Wit.  The  following  is  an  instance  of 
transverse  alliteration:  "Although  hitherto,  Euphues,  I 
have  s/iiined  thee  in  my  Aeart  for  a  ^rustic  /Hende,  I  will 
s^unne  thee  hereafter  as  a  fr-othless  /oe."  Are,  then,  this 
transverse  alliteration  and  an  antithesis  not  only  of  well- 
balanced  sentences  but  also  of  words,  even  of  syllables, 
which,  when  we  have  a  principal  and  a  subordinate  clause, 
balances  two,  three,  or  all  of  the  words  of  the  former 
against  an  equal  number  of  the  latter,  indispensable  cri- 
teria of  the  presence  of  Euphuism  ? 

Nor  will  the  objection  that,  since  we  must  explain  these 
technical  terms,  it  would  be  better  to  give  the  topic  origi- 
nally in  the  phrasing  that  we  reach  when  we  examine  it, 
usually  hold  good.  These  technical  terms,  as  the  last  illus- 
tration shows,  often  phrase  what  can  be  expressed  otherwise 
only  by  circumlocution  both  awkward  and  too  cumbersome 
for  a  heading.  Moreover,  it  is  important  the  reader  should 
realize  that  what  he  understands  clearly  enough  when 
stated  at  length  is  only  what  the  scientist  or  specialist 
denotes  by  a  single  word  or  term.  That  is  his  first  step 
into  his  new  knowledge.  Unless,  therefore,  the  technical 


42  ANALYSIS 

phrasing  of  the  topic  is  likely  to  repel  a  possible  reader  or 
hearer  because  it  conveys  no  meaning  to  his  mind  and 
does  not  pique  his  curiosity,  it  may  well  be  retained,  but 
should  be  at  once,  in  the  introductory  work,  cleared  of  all 
vagueness. 

Thirdly,  this  process  avoids  any  confusion  liable  to  arise 
from  ambiguous  terms.  When  the  subject,  "  Was  the  treat- 
ment of  the  American  Loyalists  by  the  Whigs  justifi- 
able?" appeared  recently  in  a  list  of  forensic  topics,  briefs 
from  two  very  different  points  of  view  were  drawn  on  it. 
Some  students  took  "Whigs"'  to  mean  the  Whig  party 
in  the  Colonies,  that  is,  those  who  were  in  armed  resistance 
to  Great  Britain,  while  others  interpreted  "  Whigs  "  to  mean 
the  Whig  ministry  of  Lord  Shelburne.  As  far  as  the 
mere  wording  of  the  question  is  concerned,  each  interpre- 
tation is  justifiable.  The  trouble  lies,  of  course,  in  the 
ambiguousness  of  "Whig."  If  we  rephrase  the  question 
thus,  "  Was  the  treatment  of  the  American  Loyalists  by 
the  English  Whigs  justifiable  ?  "  the  danger  disappears. 

Fourthly,  the  process  prevents  use  of  a  question-beg- 
ging term,  as  in  "Is  John  Lyly's  fulsome  flattery  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  in  his  Euphues  and  his  England,  com- 
mendable?" This  question  evidently  takes  for  granted 
that  the  flattery  of  Elizabeth  was  "  fulsome,"  and  therefore 
it  is  important  to  understand  just  what  "  fulsome  flattery  " 
means.  "  Fulsome  "  is  "  something  offensive  from  excess, 
gross,  nauseous,  disgusting."  But  anything  that  deserves 
these  adjectives  can  hardly  be  commendable,  and  therefore 
the  term  "  fulsome  "  begs  the  question. 


EXCLUDING  EXTRANEOUS  IDEAS  43 

SECTION  4  — THE  THIRD  STEP  —  FINDING  THE 
SPECIAL  ISSUES 

The  clash  in  opinion  provides  the  special  issues.  When 
an  investigator  has  learned  from  the  immediate  cause  for 
discussion  that  his  proposition  really  phrases  the  subject 
of  interest  at  the  moment,  and  from  the  origin  of  the  ques- 
tion and  the  clash  in  opinion  has  found  what  its  terms 
mean,  he  is  ready  for  the  two  final  steps  in  analysis,  find- 
ing the  special  issues,  that  ^is,  the  points  upon  which  settle- 
ment of  the  case  depends,  and  constructing  his  case  by 
briefing  the  ideas  essential  in  the  discussion  but  subsidiary 
to  those  special  issues.  These  steps  he  will  make  by  an 
analytical  process  of  exclusion,  within  the  clash  in  opinion, 
for  a  central  idea  or  group  of  ideas. 

Excluding  extraneous  ideas.  When  he  examines  the 
statements  pro  and  con  which  constitute  the  clash  in  opin- 
ion he  will  often  see  that  some  of  them  are  really  extrane- 
ous to  the  question  as  phrased.  For  instance,  Lord  Erskine 
in  his  defense  of  Lord  George  Gordon  against  the  charge 
of  high  treason1  carefully  excluded  at  the  start  some 

1  Lord  George  Gordon,  a  young  Scottish  nobleman  and  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  had  been  chosen  president  of  the  Protestant 
Association,  whose  object  was  to  procure  the  repeal  of  Sir  George  Saville's 
bill  in  favor  of  the  Catholics.  He  directed  the  association  to  meet  him  in 
St.  George's  Fields,  and  proceed  thence  to  the  Parliament  House  with  a 
petition  for  the  repeal  of  the  bill.  Accordingly,  about  forty  thousand 
persons  of  the  middling  classes  assembled  on  Friday,  the  2d  of  June, 
1780,  and  after  forming  a  procession,  moved  forward  till  they  blocked 
up  all  the  avenues  to  the  House  of  Commons.  They  had  no  arms  of  any 
kind,  and  were  most  of  them  orderly  in  their  conduct. 

Lord  George  presented  the  petition,  but  the  House  refused  to  consider 
it  at  that  time.  The  multitude  now  became  disorderly,  and  after  the 
House  adjourned,  bodies  of  men  proceeded  to  demolish  the  Catholic 
chapels  at  the  residences  of  the  foreign  ministers.  From  this  moment 


44  ANALYSIS 

matters  which,  though  confused  in  the  public  mind  with 
the  real  issues  of  the  case,  were  really  extraneous. 

I  trust  I  need  not  remind  you  [the  jury]  that  the  purposes 
of  that  multitude,  as  originally  assembled  on  that  day,  and  the 
purposes  and  acts  of  him  who  assembled  them,  are  the  sole 
object  of  investigation.  All  the  dismal  consequences  which  fol- 
lowed, and  which  naturally  link  themselves  with  this  subject 
in  the  firmest  minds,  must  be  altogether  cut  off  and  abstracted 
from  your  attention  further  than  the  evidence  warrants  their 
admission.  If  the  evidence  had  been  coextensive  with  these 
consequences ;  if  it  had  been  proved  that  the  same  multitude, 
under  the  direction  of  Lord  George  Gordon,  had  afterward 
attacked  the  bank,  broke  open  the  prisons,  and  set  London  in 
a  conflagration,  I  should  not  now  be  addressing  you.  .  .  .  But 
when  it  has  appeared,  not  only  by  the  evidence  in  the  cause, 
but  by  the  evidence  of  the  thing  itself  —  by  the  issues  of  life, 
which  may  be  called  the  evidence  of  Heaven  —  that  these 
dreadful  events  were  either  entirely  unconnected  with  the 
assembling  of  that  multitude  to  attend  the  petition  of  the 
Protestants,  or,  at  the  very  worst,  the  unforeseen,  undesigned, 
unabetted,  and  deeply  regretted  consequences  of  it,  I  confess 
the  seriousness  and  solemnity  of  this  trial  sink  and  dwindle 

the  whole  affair  changed  its  character.  Desperate  men,  many  of  them 
thieves  and  robbers,  took  the  lead.  Not  only  were  Catholic  chapels  set  on 
fire,  but  the  London  prisons  were  broken  open  and  destroyed  ;  thirty-six 
fires  were  blazing  at  one  time  during  the  night.  The  town  was  for  some 
days  completely  in  the  power  of  the  multitude.  The  military  were  at  last 
called  in  from  the  country,  and,  after  a  severe  conflict,  the  mob  was 
put  down. 

When  order  was  restored,  the  magistrates  arraigned  Lord  George 
Gordon  on  the  grounds  that  (1)  In  assembling  the  multitude  around  the 
two  Houses  of  Parliament,  he  was  guilty  of  high  treason,  if  he  did  so  with 
a  view  to  overawe  and  intimidate  the  Legislature,  and  enforce  his  pur- 
poses by  numbers  and  violence  (a  doctrine  fully  confirmed  by  the  court)  ; 
and  (2)  That  the  overt  acts  proved  might  be  fairly  construed  into  such  a 
design,  and  were  the  only  evidence  by  which  a  traitorous  intention,  in 
such  a  case,  could  be  shown. 


EXCLUDING  ADMITTED  MATTER  45 

away.  Only  abstract  from  your  minds  all  that  misfortune, 
accident,  and  the  wickedness  of  others  have  brought  upon  the 
scene,  and  the  cause  requires  no  advocate.  When  I  say  that 
it  requires  no  advocate,  I  mean  that  it  requires  no  argument 
to  screen  it  from  the  guilt  of  treason.  For  though  I  am  per- 
fectly convinced  of  the  purity  of  my  noble  friend's  intentions, 
yet  I  am  not  bound  to  defend  his  prudence,  nor  to  set  it  up  as 
a  pattern  for  imitation  :  since  you  are  not  trying  him  for  impru- 
dence, for  indiscreet  zeal,  or  for  want  of  foresight  and  precau- 
tion, but  for  a  deliberate  and  malicious  predetermination  to 
overpower  the  laws  and  government  of  his  country  by  hostile, 
rebellious  force.1 

Excluding  admitted  matter.  Usually,  too,  the  clash  in 
opinion  contains  statements  which  an  investigator  may 
admit  and  yet  maintain  the  affirmative  or  negative  of  the 
main  proposition.  For  instance,  in  a  discussion  on  "  Should 
the  Canteen  be  restored  in  U.  S.  Army  Posts  ?  "  one  side 
urged  restoring  the  Canteen  because  it  would  better  the 
health  of  the  soldiers  since  (1)  they  will  drink;  (2)  they 
now  drink  in  undesirable  places  outside  the  posts ;  (3)  this 
means  debauchery  and  consequent  disease ;  and  (4)  under 
the  old  conditions  both  debauchery  and  disease  were  less. 
Their  opponents  wisely  admitted  the  truth  of  (1),  (2),  and 
(3),  maintaining  only  that  the  health  of  the  soldiers  would 
not  be  improved  by  a  return  to  the  old  system  because 
there  is  less  drinking  and  debauchery  now  than  formerly, 
and  consequently  their  health  is  better.  Daniel  Webster 
in  his  argument  on  The  Bank  of  the  United  States  against 
William  D.  Primrose  made  effective  use  of  admitted  matter. 

The  Bank  of  the  United  States  is  a  corporation  created  by 
a  law  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  By  that  act  the  bank, 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  98,  99. 


46  ANALYSIS 

among  other  functions,  possesses  that  of  dealing  in  bills  of 
exchange.  In  the  month  of  January,  1837,  having  funds  in 
Mobile,  this  bank,  through  the  instrumentality  of  its  agent, 
Mr.  Poe,  purchased  a  bill  of  exchange  to  remit  to  New  York. 
This  bill,  drawn  at  Mobile  upon  New  York,  and  indorsed 
by  William  D.  Primrose,  the  defendant  in  this  case,  not 
having  been  paid  either  at  New  York  or  by  the  drawer,  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States  instituted  this  suit  in  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Alabama,  to  recover  the  money  due  on  the  bill.  In 
the  court  below,  it  was  decided  that  the  contract  by  Poe  in 
behalf  of  the  bank  was  void,  on  two  grounds  :  First,  because 
it  was  a  contract  made  by  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  in 
the  State  of  Alabama  ;  whereas  a  bank  incorporated  by  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  can  do  no  act  out  of  the  limits  of  Penn- 
sylvania. Secondly,  because  Alabama  has  a  bank  of  her  own 
which  is  owned  by  the  State  herself,  which  is  authorized  to  buy 
and  sell  exchange,  and  from  the  profits  of  which  she  derives 
her  revenue ;  and  the  purchase  of  bills  of  exchange  being  a 
banking  operation,  the  purchase  of  such  bills  by  others,  at 
least  by  any  corporation,  although  there  is  no  express  law 
forbidding  it,  is  against  the  policy  of  the  State  of  Alabama, 
as  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  provisions  of  the  constitution 
of  that  State,  and  the  law  made  in  conformity  thereto. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  parties  are  rightfully  in  court.  It  is 
admitted,  also,  that  the  defendant  is  a  citizen  of  Alabama, 
and  that  all  the  citizens  who  compose  the  corporation  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States  are  citizens  of  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, or  of  some  other  State  than  Alabama.  The  question 
is,  Can  they,  as  a  corporation,  do  any  act  within  the  State  of 
Alabama  ?  In  other  words,  is  there  any  thing  in  the  consti- 
tution or  laws  of  the  State  of  Alabama  which  prohibits,  or 
rightfully  can  prohibit,  citizens  of  other  States,  or  corpora- 
tions created  by  other  States,  from  buying  and  selling  bills 
of  exchange  in  the  State  of  Alabama  ? 

In  his  argument  yesterday  for  the  defendant,  my  learned 
friend  asked  certain  questions  which  I  propose  to  answer. 


EXCLUDING  WAIVED  AND   GRANTED  MATTER     47 

Can  this  bank,  said  he,  transfer  itself  into  the  State  of 
Alabama  ?  Certainly  not.  Can  it  establish  a  branch  in  the 
State  of  Alabama,  there  to  perform  the  same  duties,  and 
transact  the  same  business,  in  all  respects,  as  in  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  ?  Certainly  not.  Can  it  exercise  in  the  State 
of  Alabama  any  of  its  corporate  functions  ?  Certainly  it  can. 
For  my  learned  friend  admits  its  right  to  sue  in  that  State, 
which  is  a  right  that  it  possesses  solely  by  the  authority  of 
the  Pennsylvania  law  by  which  the  bank  is  incorporated. 

We  thus  clear  the  case  of  some  difficulty  by  arriving  at 
this  point,  the  admission  on  both  sides  that  there  are  certain 
powers  which  the  bank  can  exercise  within  the  State  of 
Alabama,  and  certain  others  which  it  cannot  exercise. 

The  question  is,  then,  whether  the  bank  can  exercise,  within 
the  State  of  Alabama,  this  very  power  of  buying  a  bill  of 
exchange. 

Our  proposition  is,  that  she  can  buy  a  bill  of  exchange 
within  the  State  of  Alabama ;  because  there  are  no  corporate 
functions  necessary  to  the  act  of  buying  a  bill  of  exchange ; 
because  buying  and  selling  exchange  is  a  thing  open  to  all 
the  world,  in  Alabama  as  well  as  everywhere  else;  because, 
although  the  power  to  buy  and  sell  bills  of  exchange  be  con- 
ferred on  this  bank  by  its  charter,  and  it  could  not  buy  or 
sell  a  bill  of  exchange  without  that  provision  in  its  charter, 
yet  this  power  was  conferred  upon  it,  as  were  other  powers 
conferred  by  its  charter,  to  place  the  bank  upon  the  same 
footing  as  an  individual;  to  give  it,  not  a  monopoly,  not 
an  exclusive  privilege,  in  this  respect,  but  simply  the  same 
power  which  the  members  of  the  corporation,  as  individuals, 
have  an  unquestionable  right  to  exercise.1 

Excluding  waived  and  granted  matter.  Moreover,  an 
investigator  may  notice  in  the  clash  in  opinion  additional 
ideas  which,  for  the  simplification  of  the  discussion,  may 

1  The  Writings  and  Speeches  of  Daniel  Webster.  Vol.  XI,  pp.  107-109. 


48  ANALYSIS 

be  set  aside.  In  the  first  place,  he  may  note  statements 
the  truth  of  which  for  the  discussion  in  question  he  is 
willing  to  grant,  or  discussion  of  which  he  will  waive  by 
agreement  with  his  opponent.  It  must  be  clear  that  waiv- 
ing discussion  of  a  point  by  agreement  puts  it  wholly  out 
of  the  discussion,  making  it  for  the  question  in  hand  extra- 
neous ;  but  that  a  point  granted  true  by  one  side  may  be 
used  by  the  other  in  its  proof  because  for  this  special  dis- 
cussion it  has  become  admitted  matter.  In  many  recent 
college  discussions  of  the  question,  "  Should  the  United 
States  own  and  control  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama?"  both  sides  agreed  to  waive  discussion  of  the 
relative  merits  of  the  Panama  and  the  Nicaragua  route. 
Evidently,  under  this  agreement,  material  on  this  subject 
became  extraneous.  Carl  Schurz,  in  his  speech  On  the 
Democratic  War  Policy,  justifying  the  use  of  negroes  for 
military  purposes,  provides  an  interesting  illustration  of 
granted  matter.  His  treatment  of  it  shows  that  he  knows 
his  opponents  will  try  to  use  it  as  admitted  matter  from 
which  to  construct  an  effective  attack  on  his  case. 

Your  leaders  tell  you  that  negro  slaves  are  property  just  in 
the  same  measure  and  manner  as  horses  and  cattle  and  pro- 
visions are  property.  Granted  for  argument's  sake.  As  our 
armies  penetrated  into  the  enemy's  country,  a  large  quantity 
of  that  negro  property  fell  into  their  hands.  What  were  we 
to  do  with  the  captured  negroes  ?  Send  them  back  to  their 
masters?  or  keep  them,  feed  them,  clothe  them  for  the  pur- 
pose of  returning  them  at  some  future  time  ?  We  captured 
also  cavalry  horses  and  beeves.  Who  would  have  thought  of 
sending  them  back  to  their  owners,  or  of  feeding  and  groom- 
ing them  without  using  them?  The  captured  cattle  prop- 
erty was  butchered  and  distributed  in  the  shape  of  rations ; 
upon  the  captured  horse  property  we  mount  our  cavalrymen  j 


SPECIAL  ISSUES  49 

why,  then,  in  the  name  of  common-sense,  should  we  not  put 
the  captured  negro  property  to  such,  use  as  it  was  capable  of  ? 
Do  you  see  how  absurd  it  would  be  to  object  to  this  ?  And, 
mark  you  well,  Democrats,  this  property  theory  is  yours,  and 
I  have  abstained  from  discussing  the  matter  from  the  stand- 
point of  uiy  own  principles.1 

Special  issues.  By  this  exclusion  from  the  clash  in 
opinion,  of  all  extraneous,  admitted,  waived,  and  granted 
matter,  the  investigator  reaches  a  set  of  statements  all  of 
which  directly  or  indirectly  are  essential  to  the  discussion 
of  the  question.  Even  a  cursory  examination  of  these  will 
show  that  a  few  are  of  prime  importance  and  the  rest  sub- 
sidiary. These  ideas  of  prime  importance  are  the  Special 
Issues  2  in  the  case,  that  is  they  involve  the  points  upon 
which  settlement  of  the  case  depends.  The  remaining 
material  will  fall  under  these  issues,  appearing  either  as 
subsidiary  heads  or,  in  the  argument  proper,  as  evidential 
support  of  them.3 

The  formal  process  of  analyzing  a  proposition  for  the 
special  issues  is  well  shown  in  the  forensic  on  "  Should 
the  Elective  System  be  applied  to  High  Schools  ?  "  printed 
in  the  Appendix.  Of  course,  just  as  we  have  seen  that 
the  immediate  cause  for  discussion  and  the  origin  of  the 
question  may  often  be  one  and  the  same,  so,  too,  the 
clash  in  opinion  may  be  on  one  or  two  points  only  and 

1  American  Orations.  Edited  by  Alexander  Johnston.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  199- 
200. 

2  Students  must  not  confuse  this  use  of  these  words  with  issues  as  used 
in  political  campaigns,  —  choices  between  two  planks  in  party  platforms, 
for  instance  between  free  trade  and  protection. 

8  For  illustrations  see  Webster's  partitioning  of  the  main  issue,  p.  47, 
paragraph  4,  the  forensic  as  to  the  Elective  System,  the  clash  of  opinion 
on  professional  coaching,  and  the  model  briefs  printed  in  the  Appendix. 


50  ANALYSTS 

unclouded  by  all  or  any  of  the  four  classes  of  matter 
which  should  be  excluded, —  extraneous,  admitted,  waived, 
and  granted  matter.  A  good  specimen  of  a  clear  introduc- 
tion to  a  question  much  beclouded  by  misinformation  and 
misinterpretation  is  Mr.  Sidney  Lee's  opening  of  his  pam- 
phlet on  The  Alleged  Vandalism  at  Stratford-on-Avon.  It 
shows  that  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion  and  the 
origin  of  the  question  if  skillfully  stated  may  do  much 
to  rid  a  discussion  of  confusion.  In  it  no  exclusion  is 
necessary  except  of  some  extraneous  matter  in  regard  to 
Mr.  Carnegie  and  of  some  matter  concerning  the  relations 
of  the  Board  of  Trustees  and  the  Corporation  of  Stratford 
which  must  be  admitted. 


At  the  beginning  of  this  year  I  was  elected  a  Trustee  of 
Shakespeare's  Birthplace,  an  honour  which  I  highly  appre- 
ciated. .  .  .  Within  a  few  days  of  my  election  as  Trustee  of 
the  Birthplace,  I  had  to  leave  England  to  fulfil  a  series  of 
long-standing  engagements  in  America,  whence  I  am  just 
returned.  Rumours  reached  me  in  America  that  my  fellow- 
Trustees  proposed  to  remove  or  alter  various  buildings  adjoin- 
ing Shakespeare's  Birthplace,  and  that  public  opinion  was,  on 
literary  and  artistic  grounds,  strongly  excited  by  this  course 
of  action. 

As  soon  as  I  arrived  home,  I  made  careful  inquiries  into 
the  origin  of  these  rumours.  I  learned  that  for  some  months 
past  the  Trustees  had  been  constant  objects  of  denunciation 
by  the  persons  who,  from  various  points  of  view,  claimed 
interest  in  the  affairs  of  Stratford. 

After  due  investigation  of  the  circumstances,  I  have  now 
assured  myself  that  the  public  has  been  misled  on  almost  all 
the  essential  points.  Spasmodic  endeavours  have  been  made 
to  remove  the  misconceptions  from  the  public  mind.  But 
they  persist  in  many  quarters.  I  believe  it  to  be  to  the 


SPECIAL  ISSUES  — LEE  51 

public  advantage,  and  in  the  interests  of  truth,  to  set  forth 
clearly  the  full  facts  of  the  case.  The  public  may  then  be 
in  a  position  to  form  a  judgment  on  the  subject  which  shall 
be  final.  But  it  should  be  understood  that  I  take  this  step 
on  my  sole  personal  responsibility. 

Put  briefly,  the  charges  alleged  against  the  Trustees  were 
two.  Firstly,  it  was  stated  that  they  were  wantonly  bent 
on  destroying  the  historic  aspect  of  Henley  Street,  in  which 
Shakespeare's  Birthplace  stands,  by  arranging  for  the  demoli- 
tion of  houses  of  historic  interest,  which  had  lately  come  into 
their  possession,  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  Birth- 
place. Secondly,  the  Trustees  were  accused  of  conspiring 
with  the  Corporation  of  Stratford-on-Avon  to  apply  to  the 
purposes  of  a  Free  Public  Library  another  building  of  ancient 
date,  which  was  situated  in  the  same  street,  in  close  proximity 
to  the  Birthplace.  The  Trustees'  action  was  described  as 
"  iconoclastic  "  and  "barbarous,"  as  a  "  serious  piece  of  vandal- 
ism "  involving  "  desecration  "  and  "  spoliation "  of  historic 
edifices. 

It  was  made  a  further  ground  of  objection,  that  the  con- 
templated changes  owed  their  origin  to  the  intervention  of 
Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie.  That  gentleman  had  not  only  pur- 
chased the  houses  adjoining  the  Birthplace,  for  presentation 
to  the  Trustees,  but  had  also  undertaken  the  expense  of  pro- 
viding Stratford  with  a  Public  Library.  It  would  be  an 
impertinence  to  dwell  on  this  part  of  the  theme.  No  right- 
minded  person  can  fail  to  resent  the  introduction  of  Mr.  Car- 
negie's name  into  the  controversy  in  other  than  appreciative 
terms.  Mr.  Carnegie's  action  was  taken  in  characteristically 
generous  response  to  applications  which  reached  him  from  the 
town.  He  attached  no  conditions  to  his  gifts,  which  were 
manifestly  designed  to  serve  the  interests  of  Stratford  and 
its  literary  associations. 

Two  separate  issues  have  been  raised  in  the  strife,  and  have 
not  been  kept  adequately  distinct.  The  Trustees  of  the  Birth- 
place, as  constituted  by  the  Act  of  Parliament  of  1891,  form 


52  ANALYSIS 

a  body  that  is  quite  independent  of  the  Corporation  of  Strat- 
ford. The  Act  gives  the  Corporation  a  large  representation 
on  the  Board  of  Trustees,  but  each  body  has  its  own  statutory 
functions.  Yet  the  Trustees  have  been  constantly  denounced 
for  action,  wholly  outside  their  province,  which  was  taken  by 
the  Corporation  independently  of  them. 

In  regard  to  the  present  issues,  the  Trustees  are  solely  con- 
cerned with  the  fate  of  the  cottages  in  immediate  proximity 
to  the  Birthplace  garden,  which  were  purchased  by  Mr.  Car- 
negie for  presentation  to  them.  The  second  issue  touches 
the  fate  of  another  building,  which,  although  it  adjoins  the 
newly  acquired  property  of  the  Trustees,  belongs  to  the  Cor- 
poration and  has,  in  the  exercise  of  that  body's  exclusive  dis- 
cretion, been  appropriated  by  it  to  the  projected  Free  Library. 
But  I  wish  to  cover  the  whole  field  of  the  discussion,  and 
therefore  am  prepared  to  deal  with  the  Corporation's  action 
in  regard  to  the  Library,  at  the  same  time  as  I  draw  atten- 
tion to  the  misunderstanding  which  lays  such  action  at  the 
Trustees'  door.1 

After  five  days  of  preliminary  analysis  and  discussion, 
Burke  knew  that  his  audience  would  recognize  at  once  the 
correctness  of  this  statement  of  the  issues  involved  in  the 
case  of  Warren  Hastings. 

I,  therefore,  charge  Mr.  Hastings  with  having  destroyed, 
for  private  purposes,  the  whole  system  of  government  by  the 
six  provincial  councils,  which  he  had  no  right  to  destroy. 

I  charge  him  with  having  delegated  to  others  that  power 
which  the  act  of  parliament  had  directed  him  to  preserve 
unalienably  in  himself. 

I  charge  him  with  having  formed  a  committee  to  be  mere 
instruments  and  tools,  at  the  enormous  expenses  of  £62,000 
per  annum. 

1  The  Atteged  Vandalism  at  Stratford-on-Avon.  Sidney  Lee.  pp.  21- 
26.  Archibald  Constable  &  Co.  Ltd.  1903. 


SPECIAL  ISSUES  — BURKE  53 

I  charge  him  with  having  appointed  a  person  their  dewan, 
to  whom  these  Englishmen  were  to  be  subservient  tools ; 
whose  name,  to  his  own  knowledge,  was  by  the  general  voice 
of  India,  by  the  general  recorded  voice  of  the  Company, 
by  recorded  official  transactions,  by  everything  that  can 
make  a  man  known,  abhorred  and  detested,  stamped  with 
infamy ;  and  with  giving  him  the  whole  power  which  he  had 
thus  separated  from  the  council-general  and  from  the  provin- 
cial councils. 

I  charge  him  with  taking  bribes  of  Gunga  Govin  Sing. 

I  charge  him  with  not  having  done  that  bribe  service  which 
fidelity  even  in  iniquity  requires  at  the  hands  of  the  worst 
of  men. 

I  charge  him  with  having  robbed  those  people  of  whom  he 
took  the  bribes. 

I  charge  him  with  having  fraudulently  alienated  the  for- 
tunes of  widows. 

I  charge  him  with  having,  without  right,  title,  or  purchase, 
taken  the  lands  of  orphans,  and  given  them  to  wicked  persons 
under  him. 

I  charge  him  with  having  removed  the  natural  guardians 
of  a  minor  Rajah,  and  with  having  given  that  trust  to  a 
stranger,  Debi  Sing,  whose  wickedness  was  known  to  himself 
and  all  the  world ;  and  by  whom  the  Rajah,  his  family  and 
dependants  were  cruelly  oppressed. 

I  charge  him  with  having  committed  to  the  management  of 
Debi  Sing  three  great  provinces ;  and  thereby,  with  having 
wasted  the  country,  ruined  the  landed  interest,  cruelly  harassed 
the  peasants,  burnt  their  houses,  seized  their  crops,  tortured 
/and  degraded  their  persons,  and  destroyed  the  honour  of  the 
whole  female  race  of  that  country. 

In  the  name  of  the  Commons  of  England,  I  charge  all  this 
villany  upon  Warren  Hastings,  in  this  last  moment  of  my 
application  to  you.1 

*  Selections  from  £urke.   B.  Perry,    pp.  133-134.    H.  Holt  &  Co.   1896. 


54  ANALYSIS 

This  letter  of  President  Lincoln's  to  General  McClellan 
was  the  result  of  much  consultation  and  correspondence 
as  to  opposing  plans  and  opinions. 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  WASHINGTON, 

February  3,  1862. 
MAJOR-GENERAL  MCCLELLAN  : 

My  dear  Sir:  You  and  I  have  distinct  and  different  plans 
for  a  movement  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  —  yours  to  be 
down  the  Chesapeake,  up  the  Rappahannock  to  Urbana,  and 
across  land  to  the  terminus  of  the  railroad  on  the  York  Eiver; 
mine  to  move  directly  to  a  point  on  the  railroad  southwest 
of  Manassas. 

If  you  will  give  me  satisfactory  answers  to  the  following 
questions,  I  shall  gladly  yield  my  plan  to  yours. 

first.  Does  not  your  plan  involve  a  greatly  larger  expendi- 
ture of  time  and  money  than  mine  ? 

Second.  "Wherein  is  a  victory  more  certain  by  your  plan 
than  mine? 

Third.  Wherein  is  a  victory  more  valuable  by  your  plan 
than  mine  ? 

Fourth.  In  fact,  would  it  not  be  less  valuable  in  this,  that 
it  would  break  no  great  line  of  the  enemy's  communications, 
while  mine  would? 

Fifth.  In  case  of  disaster,  would  not  a  retreat  be  more 
difficult  by  your  plan  than  mine  ? 

Yours  truly, 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 
MAJOR-GENERAL  McCLELLAN.1 

1  "General  McClellan  had  succeeded  General  Scott  on  November  1, 
1861,  as  Commander-in-Chief  (under  the  President)  of  all  the  armies 
of  the  United  States.  On  January  31,  1862,  the  President  had  issued 
his  '  Special  War  Order  No.  1,'  directing  a  forward  movement  of  the 
Army  of  the  Potomac.  This  order  conflicted  with  plans  which  McClel- 
lan had  formed,  and  he  remonstrated."  Little  Masterpieces,  Lincoln. 
B.  Perry,  p.  109. 


SPECIAL  ISSUES  — WYATT  55 

Sir  Thomas  Wyatt,  accused  of  high  treason,  cut  down 
his  case  as  follows,  sure,  because  the  indictment  and  the 
evidence  had  already  been  heard,  that  the  correctness  of 
his  issues  must  be  recognized. 

The  accusation  comprehendeth  the  indictment,  and  all 
these  worshipful  men's  tales  annexed  thereunto.  The  length 
whereof,  the  cunning  whereof,  made  by  learned  men,  weaved 
in  and  out,  to  persuade  you  and  trouble  me  here  and  there, 
to  seek  to  answer  that  is  in  the  one  afore,  and  in  the  other 
behind,  may  both  deceive  you  and  amaze  me,  if  God  put  not 
in  your  heads  honest  wisdom  to  weigh  these  things  as  much 
as  it  ought  to  be.  So,  to  avoid  the  danger  of  your  forgetting, 
and  my  trouble  in  the  declaration,  it  is  necessary  to  gather 
the  whole  process  into  these  chief  points,  and  unto  them  to 
answer  directly,  whereby  ye  shall  perceive  what  be  the  prin- 
cipals, and  what  be  the  effects  which  these  men  craftily  and  wit- 
tingly have  weaved  together,  that  a  simple  man  might  hardly 
try  the  one  from  the  other.  Surely,  but  that  I  understand 
my  own  matter,  I  should  be  too  much  to  seek  and  accumbered 
in  it.  But,  masters,  this  is  more  of  law  than  of  equity,  of 
living  than  of  uprightness,  with  such  intricate  appearances 
to  blind  men's  conscience ;  specially  in  case  of  man's  life, 
where  always  the  naked  truth  is  of  goodliest  persuasion. 
But  to  purpose.  Of  the  points  that  I  am  accused  of,  to  my 
perceiving,  these  be  the  two  marks  whereunto  mine  accusers 
direct  all  their  shot  of  eloquence.  A  deed,  and  a  saying. 
After  this  sort,  in  effect,  is  the  deed  alleged  with  so  long 
words:  "Wyatt  in  so  great  trust  with  the  King's  Majesty 
that  he  hath  made  him  his  ambassador,  and  for  whom  his 
Majesty  had  done  so  much,  being  ambassador,  hath  had  intel- 
ligence with  the  King's  rebel  and  traitor,  Pole."  Touching 
the  saying,  amounteth  to  this  much:  "  That  same  Wyatt,' 
being  also  ambassador,  maliciously,  falsely  and  traitorously 
said,  'That  he  feared  that  the  King  should  be  cast  out  of  a 
cart's  tail ;  and  that  by  God's  blood,  if  he  were  so,  he  were 


56  ANALYSIS 

well  served,  and  he  would  he  were  so.' "  The  sole  apparel  of 
the  rest  of  all  this  proof  pertaineth  to  the  proof  of  the  one 
or  the  other  of  these  two  points.  But  if  these  two  points 
appear  unto  you  to  be  more  than  false,  maliciously  invented, 
craftily  disguised  and  worse  set  forth,  I  doubt  not  but  the 
rest  of  their  proofs  will  be  but  reproofs  in  every  honest 
man's  judgment.1 

Similarly,  because  there  had  been  recent  widespread  dis- 
cussion of  the  treatment  of  Gordon  by  the  Gladstonian 
government,  Lord  Salisbury  could  go  at  once,  in  opening 
his  long  attack  on  the  Government,  to  the  two  main  issues. 

The  Marquess  of  Salisbury,  in  rising  to  move  —  "  That  this 
House,  having  taken  into  consideration  the  statements  that 
have  been  made  on  behalf  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  is 
of  opinion  that — (1.)  The  deplorable  failure  of  the  Soudan 
expedition  to  attain  its  object  has  been  due  to  the  undecided 
counsels  of  the  Government  and  to  the  culpable  delay  attend- 
ing the  commencement  of  operations ;  (2.)  that  the  policy  of 
abandoning  the  whole  of  the  Soudan  after  the  conclusion  of 
military  operations  will  be  dangerous  to  Egypt  and  inconsist- 
ent with  the  interests  of  the  Empire,"  said : 2 

In  his  Liverpool  speech,  Beecher  cut  down  a  large  part 
of  his  discussion  to  one  special  issue. 

The  power  to  create  riches  is  just  as  much  a  part  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  virtues  as  the  power  to  create  good  order  and 
social  safety.  The  things  required  for  prosperous  labor,  pros- 
perous manufactures,  and  prosperous  commerce  are  three. 
First,  liberty  ;  second,  liberty ;  third,  liberty.  Though  these 
are  not  merely  the  same  liberty,  as  I  shall  show  you.  First, 
there  must  be  liberty  to  follow  those  laws  of  business  which 

1  The  Aldine  Poets.     Wyatt.     pp.  Ixx-lxxi.     Bell  &  Co. 

2  The  Forms  of  Public  Address.     G.  P.  Baker,     p.  325.     H.  Holt  & 
Co.     1904. 


•  SPECIAL  ISSUES  — BEECHER  57 

experience  has  developed,  without  imposts,  or  restrictions,  or 
governmental  intrusions.  Business  simply  wants  to  be  let 
alone.  Then,  secondly,  there  must  be  liberty  to  distribute 
and  exchange  products  of  industry  in  any  market  without 
burdensome  tariffs,  without  imposts,  and  without  vexatious, 
regulations.  There  must  be  these  two  liberties  —  liberty  to 
create  wealth,  as  the  makers  of  it  think  best,  according  to 
the  light  and  experience  which  business  has  given  them ;  and, 
then,  liberty  to  distribute  what  they  have  created  without 
unnecessary  vexatious  burdens.  The  comprehensive  law  of 
the  ideal  industrial  condition  of  the  world  is  free  manufac- 
ture and  free  trade.  I  have  said  there  were  three  elements 
of  liberty.  The  third  is  the  necessity  of  an  intelligent  and 
free  race  of  customers.  There  must  be  freedom  among  pro- 
ducers j  there  must  be  freedom  among  the  distributors ;  there 
must  be  freedom  among  the  customers.  It  may  not  have 
occurred  to  you  that  it  makes  any  difference  what  one's  cus- 
tomers are,  but  it  does  in  all  regular  and  prolonged  business. 
The  condition  of  the  customer  determines  how  much  he  will 
buy,  determines  of  what  sort  he  will  buy.  Poor  and  ignorant 
people  buy  little  and  that  of  the  poorest  kind.  The  richest 
and  the  intelligent,  having  the  more  means  to  buy,  buy  the 
most  and  always  buy  the  best.  Here,  then,  are  the  three 
liberties  :  liberty  of  the  producer,  liberty  of  the  distributor, 
and  liberty  of  the  consumer.  The  first  two  need  no  discus- 
sion ;  they  have  been  long,  thoroughly,  and  brilliantly  illus- 
trated by  the  political  economists  of  Great  Britain  and  by 
her  eminent  statesmen;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  enough  atten- 
tion has  not  been  directed  to  the  third ;  and,  with  your  patience, 
I  will  dwell  upon  that  for  a  moment  before  proceeding  to 
other  topics.1 

In  brief,  in  public  address  only  a  few,  if  any,  of  the 
possible  formal  steps  in  finding  the   issues   involved  in 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,    pp.  160-161. 


58  ANALYSIS 

a  proposition  are  usually  given,  but  none  the  less  those 
issues,  if  correctly  stated,  have  been  ascertained  through 
use  of  just  as  much  of  the  process  as  the  particular 
question  demands.  If  a  writer  gives  none  of  them,  it  is 

•  because  he  knows  that  his  audience  possesses  the  infor- 
mation which  will  make  it  recognize  their  finality,  or  that 
it  will  take  them  on  his  authority.  But  whether  one  step 
or  all  be  represented,  to  understand  how  to  reach  the 
special  issues  involved  in  any  given  case  is  essential  to 

/  good  argumentation. 

The  clash  in  opinion  the  most  essential  part  of  analysis. 

!lt  has  probably  been  growing  clear  that  in  the  process  of 
I  cutting  a  question  to  the  special  issues,  the  clash  in  opinion 
;,  is  the  most  important  part.  A  beginner  in  argumentation 
^cannot  give  it  too  close  attention,  for  in  it  he  will  find  at 
least  part  of  the  definition  of  terms ;  from  it  he  will  draw, 
first,  the  ideas  essential  in  the  case,  and  finally,  the  special 
issues  themselves.  The  clash  in  opinion  must,  then,  be 
made  comprehensive,  for  otherwise,  as  an  argument  devel- 
ops, some  idea  or  ideas  will  turn  up  unexpectedly  in  the 
hands  of  an  opponent  which  may  rout  the  student  com- 
pletely. That  is,  in  preparing  the  clash  in  opinion  a  stu- 
dent also  lays  the  foundation  for  his  work  in  refutation,  — 
his  reply  to  the  arguments  of  his  opponent  as  contrasted 
with  support  of  his  own  statements.  No  argument  of 
consequence  offers  a  clear  road  to  victory.  Success  lies 
in  determining  which  of  two  sets  of  valid  arguments  pre- 
ponderates, for  each  side  in  argumentation  will  have  its 
strong  and  its  weak  places.  The  skillful  forensic  worker, 
like  the  great  general,  will  wish  to  know  not  only  where 
all  the  weak  places  as  well  as  the  strong  in  his  own  lines 
are,  but,  as  far  as  possible,  the  weak  and  the  strong  places 


GREAT  IMPORTANCE  OF  CLASH  IN  OPINION      59 

in  his  enemy's  lines.  If  he  is  not  to  be  disastrously  sur- 
prised, he  must  know  where  to  expect  attack:  he  must 
know  where  he  may  best  concentrate  his  assault  if  he  is 
to  overcome  his  opponent.  Now,  though  a  student  does 
not  ordinarily  completely  fail  to  consider  an  opponent's 
work,  he  usually  only  notes  the  opposing  arguments  which 
he  happens  to  meet  in  his  reading :  he  by  no  means  tries 
to  master  his  opponent's  case.  What  is  omitted,  however, 
may  be  just  what  wins  or  loses  the  case.  But  not  even 
wide  reading  always  provides  the  whole  case,  or  all  the 
possible  cases,  of  an  opponent.  One  must  sometimes  con- 
sider carefully  whether  there  be  any  new  interpretation 
of  the  question,  any  new  argument,  which  an  opponent 
may  try.  The  clash  in  opinion1  rests,  then,  on  wide  reading 
and  careful  thinking.  Essential  to  it  is  study  not  only 
of  all  that  can  be  said  in  one's  own  behalf,  but  also  all 
that  can  be  said  in  behalf  of  an  opponent.2 

1  For  a  simple  clash  in  opinion  see  Huxley's  First  Lecture  on  Evolution, 
Specimens  of  Argumentation,  pp.  64-69  ;  for  more  elaborate  illustrations 
see  the  forensic  on  ' '  Should  the  Elective  System  be  applied  to  High 
Schools  ?  "  and  the  clash  of  opinion  on  professional  coaching,  Appendix. 

2  The  importance  of  a  comprehensive  clash  is  shown  by  the  following 
incident.     Some  students  in  a  course  on  debating  suggested  as  a  topic, 
"  England's  present  control  of  Egypt,"  a  term,  not  a  proposition.    It  was 
agreed  that  two  should  phrase  a  question  from  this  term  and  that  the 
other  two  should  have  choice  of  sides.     The  resulting  question  was: 
"  Should  England  keep  her  present  control  of  Egypt?  "    The  affirmative 
fell  to  those  who  had  phrased  the  question  and  they  emphasized  "should 
keep,"  arguing  that  the  control  should  not  be  diminished.    The  negative, 
however,  cut  the  ground  from  under  the  affirmative  by  maintaining  that 
England  should  have  not  only  her  present  control  but  much  more  strin- 
gent control.     Had  the  affirmative  before  submitting  their  question  thor- 
oughly worked  out  the  possible  clash  in  opinion  on  their  proposed  topic, 
they  must  have  seen  the  need  of  rephrasing  it  so  as  not  to  allow  the  nega- 
tive a  choice  between  decreasing  and  increasing  the  control.     What  they 
really  wished  to  discuss  was :  "  Should  England's  present  control  of  Egypt 
be  diminished? " 


60  ANALYSIS 

SECTION  5  —  THE  FOURTH  STEP  —  CONSTRUCTING 
THE  CASE 

The  essentials  of  good  construction.  Even,  however,  as  a 
student  takes  the  three  steps  in  analysis,  —  phrasing  the 
proposition,  defining  the  terms,  and  rinding  the  special 
issues,  he  acquires  material  which  may  be  used  to  support 
his  views  or  to  combat  his  opponent's  ideas.  He  must 
next  learn  how  to  value  all  this  correctly,  and  how  to  mass 
it  about  his  special  issues  so  as  to  give  it  the  strongest 
presentation.  In  this  construction  of  a  case  a  knowledge 
of  evidence  and  a  knowledge  of  brief-drawing  are  essential. 
These  must  be  next  considered. 


THE   STEPS   IN  ANALYSIS 
I.  Phrasing  the  Proposition. 

^mediate  Cause  for  Discus- 

sion. 

~  .'  .       „   , 

°"<pn.  *.* 

Clash,  in  Opinion. 


II.  Defining  the  Terms 

i       TT-  I.  £  A.T- 

by  History  of  the  4  n 

Question.  I  *' 

I  C. 


III.  Finding  the  Special  < 


A.  Clash  in  Opinion. 

B.  Excluding  Extraneous  Matter. 

C.  Excluding  Admitted  Matter. 


D.  Excluding  Waived  or  Granted 
Matter. 

IV.  Constructing  the  (A.  Ordination. 

Case.  (See  Brief-  J  B.  Arrangement  for  Logical  Force. 
Drawing,  Chapterl  C.  Arrangement  for  Rhetorical 
IV.)  Force  (Climax). 


EXERCISES  61 


EXERCISES 

1.  Phrasing  propositions.    Let  the  student  phrase  propositions  on 
the  following  terms  :  College  Athletic  Association,  Fraternity,  Demo- 
cratic or  Republican  Party,  Next  Congress,  Caucus,  City  Government. 

2.  Examining  the  content  of  mind.    Let  the  class  be  given  a  col- 
lege topic  or  a  topic  of  the  day,1  as  "  Should  Freshmen  be  allowed  te 
play  on  'Varsity  football  teams  ?  "  or  «  Would  Japanese  or  Russian 
control  of  Korea  better  promote  the  political  welfare  of  the  people?" 
In  the  class  room  the  student  should  put  on  paper  at  once  a  state- 
ment as  to  which  side  he  thinks  he  prefers.     Then  state  under  the 
following  heads  the  content  of  his  mind  on  this  subject :  — 

1.  What  has  he  personally  seen,  heard,  or  felt  that  bears  on 
the  proposition  ? 

2.  What  has  he  read  on  it  ? 

3.  What  opinions  does  he  hold  as  the  result  of  reading  and 
what  as  the  result  of  his  experience  ? 

4.  What  prejudices  has  he  on  the  subject,  i.e.  feelings  that 
affect  his  judgment  but  the  soundness  of  which  he  cannot 
prove  ? 

3.  History  of  the  question.     On  some  proposition  similar  to  those 
suggested  already  let  the  student  state  what  he  knows  under  the 
following  heads  :  — 

1.  What  immediate  interest  has  the  proposition  ? 

2.  How  did  it  originally  come  under  discussion  ? 

3.  The  opinions  which  lead  him  to  prefer  the  affirmative  or 
the  negative. 

4.  What  as  far  as  he  knows  them  are  the  opinions  of  his 
opponent  in  regard  to  this  question? 

4.  Definition $f  terms.  Let  the  student  define  the  terms  of  a  similar 
question  by  the  steps  explained  in  the  text. 

5.  Definition  of  terms.    Let  the  student  after  outside  study  for- 
mulate in  class  definitions  of  the  italicized  terms  in  the  following 
propositions :  — 

1.  Is  Utilitarianism  the  right  standard  of  conduct  f 

2.  Is  Tennyson's  characterization  of  Enoch  Arden  convincing  ? 

3.  Is  the  game  of  football  brutal  ? 

1  This  may  well  be  announced  for  study  beforehand. 


62  ANALYSIS 

4.  Does  the  playing  for  money  on  summer  baseball  teams  in  itself 
make  a  student  less  sportsmanlike  ? 

5.  Would  Russian  victory  in  the  Russo-Japanese  War  promote 
the  interests  of  civilization  ? 

6.  Would  the  Income  Tax  be  a  desirable  form  of  a  national 
system  of  taxation  ? 

6.  Definition  of  terms.  Criticise  the  following  definitions  of  educa- 
tion in  the  proposition  "  Is  Governor  Vardaman  right  in  assigning 
education  as  the  cause  of  negro  criminality?" 

Governor  Vardaman's  definition.1 

1.  The  startling  facts  revealed  by  the  census  show  that  those  who  can  read 
and  write  are  more  criminal  than  the  illiterates,  which  is  true  of  no  other 
element  of  our  population.    I  am  advised  that  the  minimum  illiteracy  among 
the  negroes  is  found  in  New  England,  where  it  is  21.7  per  cent.    The  maximum 
was  found  in  the  black  belt  —  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  South  Carolina  — 
where  it  is  65.7  per  cent.     And  yet  the  negro  in  New  England  is  four  and  one- 
half  times  more  criminal,  hundred  for  hundred,  than  he  is  in  the  black  belt. 
In  the  South,  Mississippi  particularly,  I  know  he  is  growing  worse  every  year. 

My  own  idea  is  that  the  character  of  the  education  for  the  negro  ought  to 
be  changed.  If,  after  years  of  earnest  effort  and  the  expenditure  of  fabulous 
sums  of  money  to  educate  his  head,  we  have  only  succeeded  in  making  a  crim- 
inal out  of  him  and  imperiling  his  usefulness  and  efficiency  as  a  laborer,  wisdom 
would  suggest  that  we  make  another  experiment  and  see  if  we  cannot  improve 
him  by  educating  his  hand  and  his  heart.  There  must  be  a  moral  substratum 
upon  which  to  build  or  you  cannot  make  a  desirable  citizen. 

2.  In  the  discussion  of  this  question  some  of  these  magazines  limit  education 
to  the  ability  to  read  and  write.     But  we  take  a  broader  view  of  the  term. 
Now  we  mean  by  education  a  special  course  of  training  which  seeks  to  dis- 
cipline and  enlighten  the  intellect,  correct  the  temper,  cultivate  the  taste,  and 
form  manners  and  habits.    Thus  we  intend  that  education  shall  include  a  moral 
as  well  as  an  intellectual  instruction. 

3.  As  I  shall  be  using  constantly  the  word  "  education,"  a  somewhat  ambigu- 
ous term,  I  shall  try  to  define  it  as  I  shall  use  it.    By  "  education  "  is  not  meant 
simply  the  ability  to  read  and  write  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  a  college  training. 
As  it  will  be  used  in  this  discussion  it  will  mean  the  kind  of  mental  training 
that  broadens  the  mind  and  gives  the  negro  self-control  and  ability  to  hold  his 
own  in  the  world  in  competition  with  other  men  of  both  races. 

4.  In  order  to  meet  them  on  their  own  ground  we  must  agree  with  Governor 
Vardaman  and  his  followers  that  education  among  the  negroes  is  at  a  stand- 
ard far  lower  than  it  is  with  us.    This  common  agreement,  so  necessary  to  oui1 

1  Literary  Digest,  January  30,  1904. 


EXERCISES  63 

controversy,  demands  that  we  call  that  negro  educated  who  can  read  or  write, 
certainly  one  who  can  read  and  write.  We  cannot  insist  upon  a  broader  defini- 
tion of  our  term  "  education,"  because  most  writers  on  the  negro  question  build 
their  arguments  on  statistics  of  literacy.  Thus,  we  may  say  that  education  is 
that  training  which  is  able  to  stand  the  test  of  literacy. 

5.  Now  we  understand  "  education  "  as  that  intellectual  training  which  the 
negro  receives  in  the  primary  and  secondary  schools  of  the  South.    We  must 
waive,  therefore,  all  question  of  moral  training. 

6.  By  the  term  "  education  "  as  used  in  connection  with  the  negro  problem 
we  mean  not  the  classic  culture  of  high  schools,  preparatory  schools,  and  col- 
leges, which  is  to-day  beyond  the  reach  of  the  masses,  not  the  one-sided  intel- 
lectual training  of  the  industrial  and  technical  schools;  but  we  do  mean  that 
broad  course  in  culture  and  "bread-and-butter"  studies  found  in  the  lower 
grades  of  the  public  schools  which  is  conducive  to  an  all-round  development 
of  the  negro  race.    We  are  speaking  of  a  training  calculated  to  draw  out  the 
best  that  is  in  the  race  —  to  make  of  them  useful,  moral,  intelligent  citizens. 

7.  Introductory  exposition.    Let  the  student  after  investigation  of 
one  of  a  list  of  assigned  propositions  on  topics  of  the  day,  hand  in 
an  exposition  of  the  reasons  why  men  discuss  the  subject,  of  the  state 
of  the  discussion  at  the  present  time,  and  of  the  opinions  held  by 
each  side. 

8.  Special  issues.    Let  the  student  cut  down  to  serviceable  special 
issues  a  broad  clash  of  opinion  which  the  teacher  has  placed  on  the 
board,  —  such  as  one  of  the  clashes  in  the  Appendix. 

9.  Special  issues.    Let  the  student  state  what  are  the  special 
issues  of  one  or  more  of  the  following  arguments  and  how  they  have 
been  obtained  :  Mansfield,  Defense  of  Evans.    Huxley,  First  Lecture  on 
Evolution.    Erskine,  Defense  of  Gordon.    Macaulay,  Copyright  Speech.1 

10.  Special  issues.    Let  the  student  show  how  the  special  issues 
of  the  Brief  Introductions  in  the  Appendix  have  been  obtained,  and 
whether  they  are  good  or  not. 

11.  Special  issues.    Let  the  student  find  the  special  issues  in  the 
brief  on  Student  Government  at  Wellesley,  Appendix. 

12.  Special  issues.    Let  the  student  reduce  to  serviceable  special 
issues  one  or  more  of  the  propositions  analyzed  in  Exercises  1-4. 

1  For  all  of  these  see  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  22,  60,  86. 
179.    H.  Holt  &  Co. 


CHAPTER  III 

EVIDENCE 
SECTION  1  —  ASSERTION  AND  EVIDENCE 

What  assertion  is.  When  a  student  has  learned  by  critical 
reading  what  the  terms  of  his  proposition  mean  and  knows 
consequently  the  general  history  of  the  question,  that  is, 
the  immediate  cause  for  its  discussion,  the  origin  of  the 
question,  and  the  broad  clash  of  opinion ;  when,  by  analy- 
sis, he  has  cut  down  this  broad  clash  of  opinion  to  the 
essential  ideas,  and  finally  to  the  group  of  ideas  which  are 
the  special  issues,  he  has  probably  felt  the  need  of  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  nature  of  evidence,  the  material  of  proof,  and 
the  tests  whereby  he  may  accurately  estimate  its  value. 
Even  students  who  are  careful  in  their  preliminary  read- 
ing and  who  analyze  well  often  fail  in  supporting  their 
view  of  the  issue;  for,  after  reading  widely,  they  feel  so 
sure  of  the  correctness  of  their  resulting  opinions  that 
they  merely  state  what  those  opinions  are,  expecting  their 
readers  to  accept  them  without  question.  But,  except 
under  one  set  of  conditions,1  assertion,  that  is,  unqualified 
affirmation  that  something  is  true  or  false,  wise  or  fooEsh^ 
without  any  statement  of  the  reasons  why  the  writer  holds 
his  opinions  is  in  argumentation  valueless.  For  instance, 
a  minister,  talking  to  his  congregation  on  the  lessons  to  be 

1  That  is,  the  argument  from  authority.     See  p.  66. 
64 


WHAT  ASSERTION  IS  65 

drawn  from  trie  war  between  China  and  Japan,  asserted 
that  the  reason  for  the  success  of  the  Japanese  was  that 
they  keep  Sunday  and  the  Chinese  do  not.  Any  cautious 
member  of  the  congregation  might  well  wish  proof  that 
the  Japanese  as  a  nation  keep  Sunday.  Even  if  he  granted 
this,  he  would  certainly  wish  proof  that  this  custom  among 
the  Japanese  is  not  only  a  sufficient  cause  to  lead  to  so 
great  a  result  as  the  overwhelming  success  of  the  Japanese 
army,  but  the  only  cause.  Had  the  minister  been  asked 
for  this  proof,  the  absurdity  of  his  statement  would  have 
been  laid  bare. 

The  effectiveness  of  insistence  on  the  valuelessness  of 
assertion  is  shown  in  the  following  from  Sir  Thomas 
Wyatt's  defense  when  accused  of  high  treason:  — 

First  you  must  understand  that  my  masters  here,  sergeant 
-,  and  other  of  the  King's  Counsel  that  allege  here  against 


me,  were  never  beyond  the  sea  with  me,  that  I  remember. 
They  never  heard  me  say  any  such  words  there,  never  saw 
me  have  any  intelligence  with  Pole,  nor  my  indicters  neither. 
Wherein  you  must  mark,  that  neither  these  men  which  talk 
here  unsworn,  nor  the  indictment  at  large,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
evidence.  The  indicters  have  found  that  I  have  done.  If  that 
be  true,  what  need  your  trial  ?  but  if  quests  fetch  their  light 
at  indictments  at  large,1  then  is  a  man  condemned  unheard ; 
then  had  my  Lord  Dacres  been  found  guilty ;  for  he  was  indicted 
at  large  by  four  or  five  quests ;  like  was  his  matter  avowed, 
affirmed,  and  aggravated  by  an  help  of  learned  men ;  but  on 
all  this  the  honourable  and  wise  nobility  did  not  once  look ; 
they  looked  at  the  evidence,  in  which  they  weighed,  I  sup- 
pose, the  malice  of  his  accusers,  the  unlikelihood  of  the  things 
hanging  together,  and  chiefly  of  all,  the  substance  of  the  matter 
and  the  proofs.2 

1  "If  juries  decide  after  simply  hearing  the  charges." 

2  The  Poetical  Works  of  Sir  Thomas  Wyatt.     p.  Ixxii.     Bell  &  Daldy. 


66  EVIDENCE 

How  assertion  arises.  Assertion,  the  most  common  fault 
in  argumentation,  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  untrained 
mind  forgets  that  lack  of  equal  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
differences  of  temperament,  prejudice,  any  one  of  many 
causes,  may  make  one  man  unable  to  see  a  matter  as  does 
his  neighbor.  What  to  him  seems  true  is  true  for  him,  and 
should,  he  thinks,  be  equally  true  for  his  fellow-men.  For 
any  man,  his  own  experience  and  his  reasoning  from  that 
experience  are  more  convincing  than  the  experience  and 
reasoning  of  another.  That  is,  the  moment  a  statement 
of  a  writer  is  contradicted  by  the  experience  or  reasoning 
of  a  reader,  even  if  the  experience  or  the  reasoning  or  both 
be  unsound,  the  writer  must  give  reasons  for  the  correct 
ness  of  his  statement. 

The  argument  from  authority.  There  is  only  one  set  of 
conditions  in  which  unsupported  assertion  is  safe.  There 
are  men  and  books  which  have  come  to  be  regarded  as 
authoritative  on  the  subjects  which  they  treat,  and  their 
testimony  as  to  facts  and  as  to  inferences  from  facts  is 
unquestioningly  accepted.  The  Puritan  of  1620  settled  an 
argument  by  quoting  as  indisputable  a  Biblical  text.  Our 
fathers  with  similar  assurance  of  finality  cited  an  article 
of  the  Constitution.  These  men  used  the  argument  from 
authority,  in  that  they  gave  not  a  careful  statement  of 
reasons  for  a  belief  but  another's  assertion,  which,  however, 
they  knew  no  one  would  question.  Lord  Chatham,  in  his 
speech  on  removing  the  British  troops  from  Boston,  believ- 
ing Benjamin  Franklin  to  be  the  preeminent  authority  on 
American  affairs,  knew  he  would  be  recognized  as  the 
source  of  the  following  argument  from  authority :  - 

I  remember,  some  years  ago,  when  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp 
Act  was  in  agitation,  conversing  in  a  friendly  confidence  with 


VARYING  CONVINCINGNESS  OF   «  AUTHORITY  "      67 

a  person  of  undoubted  respect  and  authenticity,  on  that  sub- 
ject, and  he  assured  me  with  a  certainty  which  his  judgment 
and  opportunity  gave  him,  that  these  were  the  prevalent  and 
steady  principles  of  America  —  that  you  might  destroy  their 
towns,  and  cut  them"  off  from  the  superfluities,  perhaps  the 
conveniences  of  life,  but  that  they  were  prepared  to  despise 
your  power,  and  would  not  lament  their  loss,  while  they  have 
—  what,  my  Lords  ?  —  their  woods  and  their  liberty.  The  name 
of  my  authority,  if  I  am  called  upon,  will  authenticate  the 
opinion  irrefragably.1 

Its  varying  convincingness.  Any  consideration  when  it 
is  proper  to  use  this  argument  from  authority  —  in  what 
its  strength  consists  —  will  show  that  it  must  be  employed 
with  great  care,  since  it  is  of  variable  value.  The  final 
judge  as  to  its  fitness  in  any  given  case  is,  not  the  writer, 
but  his  readers.  The  strength  of  the  argument  from 
authority  comes  ultimately  from  the  fact  that  people  in 
general  may  be  assumed  to  admit  that  on  the  subject  under 
discussion  the  book  or  the  person  cited  cannot  state  ideas 
or  make  judgments  incorrectly.  With  books  and  men  this 
power  comes  either  from  inspirational  knowledge'  of  the 
truth,  or  from  a  reputation  for  probity  and  an  exhaustive 
study  of  the  subject  under  discussion.  The  former  is  illus- 
trated by  the  teachings  of  Christ  in  the  Bible,  the  latter, 
by  the  testimony  of  experts.  Courts,  in  trials  for  forgery 
and  murder,  have  often  given  much  weight  to  the  asser- 
tions of  such  men  as  to  the  common  authorship  of  two 
signatures,  or  the  necessarily  fatal  effect  of  the  amount 
of  poison  found  in  a  body. 

The  same  assertion,  however,  may  in  different  places, 
under  different  circumstances,  vary  in  its  degree  of  con- 
vincingness. Suppose  that  a  Christian  in  discussing  with 
1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,  p.  14. 


68  EVIDENCE 

a  Mohammedan  some  question  of  morality  quotes  some 
precept  of  the  Bible  as  final  authority.  Unless  this  pre- 
cept, which  for  the  Christian  is  a  perfect  argument  from 
authority,  is  in  the  Koran  also,  the  Mohammedan  will 
deny  its  authoritativeness  and  ask  the  Christian  to  show 
him  why  this  precept  should  be  unhesitatingly  followed. 
Certainly  the  Christian  would  behave  in  the  same  way  as 
the  Mohammedan,  if  conditions  were  reversed.  The  famous 
scientist  who  lectures  to  an  unscientific  audience  may  ven- 
ture, on  the  strength  of  his  reputation,  to  make  many  asser- 
tions. An  audience  more  trained  in  science,  knowing  that 
some  of  the  views  to  which  this  man  clings  are  fiercely 
combated  by  other  scientists,  will  be  less  willing  to  trust 
his  mere  assertions.  This  is  true,  not  because  the  audience 
doubts  his  honesty  but  rather  his  complete  mastery  of  the 
subject. 

Clearly,  then,  the  moment  that  any  one  genuinely  doubts 
either  a  writer's  honesty -or  mastery  of  the  subject  and 
asks  for  reasons  why  he  should  accent  the  statement 
made,  it  becomes  for  him  merely  assertion  in  need  of  all 
the  support  that  assertion  usually  requires.  The  doubt 
may  be  entirely  unjustified,  but  if  it  genuinely  exists,  the 
argument  from  authority  is  merely  an  assertion.  Evidently, 
then,  the  argument  from  authority  must  not  be  used  until 

thought  has  been  given  as  to  its  probable  authoritativeness 

«•      ,7         T          •        •    i 
for  the  audience  in  mind. 

Proof  and  evidence.  When  a  reader  asks  an  explanation 
of  the  grounds  for  an  assertion,  he  calls  for  proof,  "  any- 
thing which  serves,  either  immediately  or  mediately,  to  convince 
the  mind  of  the  truth  or  the  falsehood  of  a  fact  or  proposition" l 
Whatever  is  offered  in  support  of  the  opinion  or  statement 

1  On  Evidence.    Best*    p.  6. 


EVIDENCE  IN  RESEARCH  AND  LAW  CONTRASTED     69 

—  facts,  logical  deductions,  figures,  quotations,  etc.  —  is, 
taken  as  a  whole,  proof  of  its  truth.  Each  portion  of  this 
proof  is  evidence,  for  evidence  is  "  that  which  generates  proof. 
Any  matter  of  fact,  the  effect,  tendency,  or  design  of  which 
is  to  produce  in  the  mind  a  persuasion  affirmative  or  dis- 
affirmative  of  the  existence  of  some  other  matter  of  fact" l 
that  is,  evidence  is  the  material  of  proof. 

Evidence  not  limited  as  in  the  law  courts.  The  study  of 
evidence  as  it  concerns  the  general  art  of  argumentation 
is  naturally  broader  than  the  study  of  evidence  as  it  is 
used  in  the  law  courts.  "  Every  issue  in  a  cause  [in  law] 
presents  two  questions,  either  or  both  of  which  may  be 
disputed.  (1)  What  were  the  facts  in  which  the  contro- 
versy originated  ?  (2)  What  are  the  rules  of  law  by  which, 
in  view  of  these  facts,  the  issue  is  to  be  determined  ? "  2 
These  rules  of  law  necessarily  limit  acceptable  evidence  to 
that  evidence  which  it  is  wise,  as  a  rule,  in  the  interest  of 
public  policy,  to  receive  under  all  circumstances.  It  will 
be  seen  that  (1),  "  What  are  the  facts  in  which  the  contro- 
versy originated?"  is  ajmatter  of  investigation,  and  that  the 
success  of  the  lawyer  in  it  must  depend  on  his  ability  to 
analyze  keenly  and  to  support  so  clearly  and  convincingly 
his  belief  as  t©  what  the  facts  are  as  to  convince  any  rational 
being  that  he  is  correct.  The  knowledge  upon  which  the 
lawyer  depends  for  success  or  failure  is  of  the'  universal 
laws  of  reasoning  that  apply  in  every  language  and  in 
any  place. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  (2),  "  What  are  the  rules  of  law 
by  which  the  issue  is  to  be  determined  ?  "  the  lawyer  makes 
use  of  his  knowledge  of  special  rules  and  conventions, 
not  used  by  men  universally,  but  only  in  the  courts  of  his 

1  Idem.  2  Forensic  Oratory.    W.  C.  Robinson,    p.  60, 


70  EVIDENCE 

land.  In  the  division  of  a  case  made  above  by  Professor 
Robinson,  then,  (1),  deciding  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case, 
depends  wholly  on  the  methods  of  reasoning  that  all  men 
use ;  (2),  deciding  what  are  the  rules  of  law  by  which  the 
issue  is  to  be  determined,  depends  first  on  a  knowledge  of 
rules  special  to  a  small  area,  arid  secondly  on  an  applica- 
tion of  these  rules  to  the  facts  by  the  universal  methods 
of  reasoning  —  for  the  lawyer  must  convince  his  hearers 
that  the  decisions  he  holds  are  such  as  do  really  apply. 
In  other  words,  then,  (2),  the  special  knowledge  necessary 
for  a  lawyer  also  depends  indirectly  upon  knowledge  of 
the  universal  methods  of  reasoning. 

The  topic,  "Was  Aaron  Burr  guilty  of  treason?"  fur- 
nishes an  illustration  of  the  distinctions  just  drawn.  For 
a  lawyer  the  case  has  two  interests :  (1)  What  are  the 
facts  in  the  case;  and  (2)  what  are  the  rules  by  which 
these  facts  must  be  interpreted.  He  and  an  investigator 
will  each  work  to  find  out  the  facts  in  the  case,  but  the 
lawyer  will  work  with  the  rules  of  courts  as  to  the  per- 
missibility of  hearsay  evidence,  of  the  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses closely  allied  to  the  prisoner,  etc.,  in  mind.  For 
the  investigator  all  of  this  evidence  will  be  admissible  if 
treated  carefully.  Moreover,  the  lawyer  knows  that  by 
the  laws  of  the  country  there  must  be,  for  conviction  of 
treason,  two  witnesses  to  an  overt  act.  Unless  he  can 
produce  these  two  witnesses,  the  case  will  fail ;  indeed,  it 
did  fail  because  two  witnesses  to  an  overt  act  could  not 
be  found.  The  investigator  is  bound  by  no  such  rules  of 
the  court.  For  him  the  question  is  one  of  moral  guilt, 
and  he  will  decide  the  question  by  the  preponderance  of 
evidence  for  or  against  Burr,  whether  there  be  one  or  two 
witnesses  to  an  overt  act  of  treason. 


EVIDENCE  IN  RESEARCH  AND  LAW  CONTRASTED      71 

A  student  of  argumentation,  except  when  he  is  asked 
to  take  the  legal  point  of  view  in  treating  his  case,  should 
clearly  understand  that  he  is  bound  by  none  of  thege  laws 
of  evidence  of  the  courts.1  The  reasons  for  this  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  sets  forth  with  great  clearness :  — 

No  reasonable  man,  who,  for  his  own  satisfaction  wished 
to  ascertain  what  was  the  conduct  of  the  dock  laborers  during 
the  recent  strike,  what  were  their  motives  in  leaving  their 
work,  and  how  far,  by  force  or  otherwise,  they  intimidated 
the  so-called  "  black-legs/7  would  ever  tie  his  hands  by  any 
rules  of  evidence  [that  is,  rules  of  the  courts].  Our  inquirer 
would  listen  to  everything  said  by  persons  who  had,  or  were 
likely  to  have,  direct  or  indirect  knowledge  of  what  took 
place  before  or  during  the  strike ;  he  would  give  ear  to 
general  report;  and,  though,  if  he  understood  his  work,  he 
would  in  his  own  mind  distinguish  carefully  between  the 
probative  value  of  different  kinds  of  statements,  he  would 
certainly  not  reject  information  which  weighed  upon  his  judg- 
ment, because  it  was  only  secondary  or  hearsay  evidence.  A 
judge,  on  the  other  hand,  occupied  in  trying  laborers  on  a 
charge  of  conspiracy  to  prevent  "  black-legs  "  from  entering 
into  the  employment  of  the  Dock  Company,  would  reject 
much  evidence  which  our  investigator  would  receive.  He 
would  on  principle  shut  his  ears  to  the  effect  of  certain  alleged 
facts;  he  would  reject  all  hearsay;  he  would  not  pay  atten- 
tion to  common  report;  he  would  in  many  cases  decline  to 
consider  any  but  the  best  evidence. 

To  point  out  the  distinction  between  ordinary  inquiry  and 
judicial  procedure  does  not  involve  the  necessity  for  censuring 
either  the  common-sense  customs  of  every-day  life,  or  the  rules 
of  evidence  adopted  by  the  Courts.  The  objects  of  ordinary 

1  Such  laws  as  he  happens  to  know  may,  however,  help  by  arousing 
suspicion  of  the  evidence  to  which  they  apply  and  causing  him  to  subject 
it  to  the  tests  explained  in  Section  4  of  this  chapter. 


72  EVIDENCE 

investigation  and  of  a  judicial  inquiry  are  different.  It 
is  natural,  therefore,  that  each  should  be  conducted  on  some- 
what deferent  principles.  In  the  case,  for  example,  of  research 
into  a  matter  of  history,  the  investigator's  sole  object  is  to 
get  as  near  the  truth  as  he  can.  His  end  is  knowledge.  It 
is,  therefore,  better  that  he  should  run  some  risk  of  error 
than  that  he  should  close  his  eyes  to  evidence  which,  though 
it  may  occasionally  mislead  him,  holds  out  the  promise  of 
guiding  him,  if  not  to  certain,  yet  to  highly  probable,  con- 
clusions. A  judge's  object  in  the  conduct  of  a  criminal  trial 
(as,  indeed,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  conduct  of  any  trial) 
is  different.  His  aim  is  to  come  to  a  conclusion  —  then  and 
then  only  —  when  the  conclusion  is  certain  enough  to  justify 
the  pronouncing  of  a  decision.  As  against  the  prisoner,  at 
any  rate,  he  wishes  in  effect  to  come  to  no  conclusion  at  all  — 
or  rather,  in  England,  to  prevent  the  jury  from  coming  to 
any  conclusion  at  all  —  unless  it  be  one  established  with 
what,  for  practical  purposes,  we  may  call  certainty.  Hence, 
he  deliberately  excludes  from  his  view  considerations  which, 
though  valuable  as  a  guide  to  probability,  involve  appreci- 
able risk  of  error.  He  is,  moreover,  compelled  to  reject  evi- 
dence of  certain  descriptions,  not  so  much  because  it  would 
lead  to  error  as  regards  the  particular  case  which  is  before 
the  Court,  as  because  the  admission  of  it  would,  as  a  general 
rule,  prevent  the  production  of  a  better  kind  of  evidence. 
This  is  the  main  reason  why  a  witness  is  not  generally  allowed 
to  give  verbal  evidence  as  to  the  contents  of  a  written 
document.1 

Ways  of  removing  assertiveness.  In  avoiding  assertive- 
ness,  therefore,  the  student  of  argumentation,  freed  from 
the  external  limitations  of  the  law  courts,  has  at  his  com- 
mand the  broad  field  of  evidence  —  facts,  reasoning,  and 
authoritative  opinions  —  governed  only  by  common  sense 

1  The  Verdict.    A.  V.  Dicey,  Q.C.    pp.  12-13.    Cassell  &  Co.    1890. 


WAYS  OF  REMOVING  ASSERTIVENESS  73 

and  trained  discrimination  as  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  the 
evidence  for  the  purpose  in  hand.  Some  of  the  many  ways 
in  which  assertions  may  be  given  evidential  support  are 
shown  in  the  following  illustrations. 

Adam  Smith,  writing  in  his  Wealth  of  Nations  on  the 
advantages  of  division  of  labor,  makes  this  assertion :  — 

The  greatest  improvement  in  the  productive  powers  of 
labor,  and  the  greater  skill,  dexterity,  and  judgment  with 
which  it  is  anywhere  directed  and  applied,  seem  to  have  been 
the  effects  of  division  of  labor. 

He  was,  however,  too  wise  to  let  this  stand  unsupported, 
and  he  added  illustrations  and  examples  in  order  to  make 
clear  the  truth  of  his  statement.  The  following  facts  as 
to  one  field  of  labor  he  knew  would  be  accepted  either 
as  generally  known  or  as  resting  on  his  authority. 

To  take  an  example,  therefore,  from  a  very  trifling  manu- 
facture, but  one  in  which  the  division  of  labor  has  been  very 
often  taken  notice  of,  the  trade  of  the  pin-maker;  a  workman 
not  educated  to  this  business  (which  the  division  of  labor  has 
rendered  a  distinct  trade),  nor  acquainted  with  the  use  of  the 
machinery  employed  in  it  (to  the  invention  of  which  the  same 
division  of  labor  has  probably  given  occasion),  could  scarce 
perhaps,  with  the  utmost  industry,  make  one  pin  a  day,  and 
certainly  could  not  make  twenty.  But  in  the  way  in  which 
this  business  is  now  carried  on,  not  only  the  whole  work  is 
a  peculiar  trade,  but  it  is  divided  into  a  number  of  branches, 
of  which  the  greater  part  are  likewise  peculiar  trades.  One 
man  draws  out  the  wire,  another  straightens  it,  a  third  cuts 
it,  a  fourth  points  it,  a  fifth  grinds  it  at  the  top  for  receiving 
the  head:  to  make  the  head  requires  two  or  three  distinct 
operations  ;  to  put  it  on  is  a  peculiar  business  ;  to  whiten  the 
pins  is  another ;  it  is  even  a  trade  by  itself  to  put  them  into 


74  EVIDENCE 

the  paper ;  and  the  important  business  of  making  a  pin  is,  in 
this  manner,  divided  into  about  eighteen  distinct  operations, 
which  in  some  manufactories  are  all  performed  by  distinct 
hands,  though  in  others  the  same  man  will  perform  two  or 
three  of  them.  I  have  seen  a  small  manufactory  of  this-  kind 
where  ten  men  only  were  employed,  and  where  some  of  them 
consequently  performed  two  or  three  distinct  operations. 
But  though  they  were  very  poor,  and  therefore  but  indiffer- 
ently accommodated  with  the  necessary  machinery,  they  could, 
when  they  exerted  themselves,  make  among  them  about  twelve 
pounds  of  pins  in  a  day.  There  are  in  a  pound  upwards  of 
four  thousand  pins  of  a  middling  size.  Those  ten  persons, 
therefore,  could  make  among  them  upwards  of  forty-eight 
thousand  pins  in  a  day.  Each  person,  therefore,  making  a 
tenth  part  of  forty-eight  thousand  pins,  might  be  considered 
as  making  four  thousand  eight  hundred  pins  in  a  day.  But 
if  they  had  all  wrought  separately  and  independently,  and 
without  any  of  them  having  been  educated  to  this  particular 
business,  they  certainly  could  not  each  of  them  have  made 
twenty,  perhaps  not  one  pin  in  a  day ;  that  is,  certainly  not 
the  two  hundred  and  fortieth,  perhaps  not  the  four  thousand 
eight  hundredth  part  of  what  they  are  at  present  capable  of 
performing,  in  consequence  of  a  proper  division  and  combina- 
tion of  their  different  operations.1 

Here  is  an  assertion  from  the  prospectus  of  a  building 
company :  — 

After  deducting  ten  per  cent  from  the  estimated  income 
and  paying  all  taxes  and  expenses  of  every  nature,  the  net 
rentals  are  sufficient  to  take  care  of  the  interest  on  the  mort- 
gage, and  pay  dividends  of  five  dollars  per  share,  leaving  a 
surplus  of  eleven  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy  dollars, 
or  nearly  sixteen  per  cent  of  the  gross  income. 

1  Wealth  of  Nations.  The  Division  of  Labor.  Specimens  of  Expo- 
sition. H.  Lamont.  pp.  105-107.  H.  Holt  &  Co.  J894. 


WAYS  OF  REMOVING  ASSERTIVENESS  75 

The  assertion  is  supported  by  the  following  figures, 
which  are  partly  self-evident  facts  and  partly  the  opinions 
of  would-be  authorities. 

Income. 

Estimated  rentals $74,300 

Deduct  ten  per  cent  for  vacancies    .     .     .          7,430 

Net  rentals $66,870 

Estimated  expenses,  including  taxes     .     .        19,000 

$47,870 
Interest  on  $400,000  mortgage 

at  four  per  cent  per  annum     .    $16,000 
Dividend  $5  per  share  on      .     . 

4,000  shares 20,000 

$36,000 

$11,870 

Macaulay,  in  his  famous  review  of  Croker's  Boswell's 
Johnson,  said :  — 

Nothing  in  the  work  has  astonished  us  so  much  as  the 
ignorance  or  the  carelessness  of  Mr.  Croker  with  respect  to 
facts  and  dates.  Many  of  his  blunders  are  such  as  we  should 
be  surprised  to  hear  any  well-educated  gentleman  commit,  even 
in  conversation. 

Macaulay  justifies  these  assertions  by  reasoning  based 
on  a  comparison  of  Croker's  contradictory  statements. 

In  one  place,  Mr.  Croker  says  that  at  the  commencement 
of  the  intimacy  between  Dr.  Johnson  and  Mrs.  Thrale,  in 
1765,  the  lady  was  twenty-five  years  old.1  In  other  places 

1  Macaulay  carefully  gives  references  to  the  places  in  Croker's  edition 
where  the  misstatements  cited  occur. 


76  EVIDENCE 

he  says  that  Mrs.  Thrale's  thirty-fifth  year  coincided  with 
Johnson's  seventieth.  Johnson  was  born  in  1709.  If,  there- 
fore, Mrs.  Thrale's  thirty-fifth  year  coincided  with  Johnson's 
seventieth,  she  could  have  been  only  twenty-one  years  old  in 
1765.  This  is  not  all.  Mr.  Croker,  in  another  place,  assigns 
the  year  1777  as  the  date  of  the  complimentary  lines  which 
Johnson  made  on  Mrs.  Thrale's  thirty-fifth  birthday.  If  this 
date  be  correct,  Mrs.  Thrale  must  have  been  born  in  1742,  and 
could  have  been  only  twenty-three  when  her  acquaintance  with 
Johnson  commenced.  Mr.  Croker,  therefore,  gives  us  three 
different  statements  as  to  her  age.  Two  of  the  three  must 
be  incorrect.1 

Edmund  Burke,  in  his  speech  on  Conciliation  with  the 
American  Colonies,  made  this  assertion :  — 

But  I  confess  .  .  .  my  opinion  is  much  more  in  favor  of 
prudent  management  than  of  force ;  considering  force  not  as 
an  odious  but  a  feeble  instrument  for  preserving  a  people  so 
numerous,  so  active,  so  growing,  so  spirited  as  this,  in  a  profit- 
able and  subordinate  connection  to  us. 

This  he  supported  with  the  following  explanatory  reason- 
ing drawn  from  common  human  experience  :  — 

First,  Sir,  permit  me  to  observe,  that  the  use  of  force  alone 
is  but  temporary.  It  may  subdue  for  a  moment ;  but  it  does 
not  remove  the  necessity  of  subduing  again:  and  a  nation 
is  not  governed  which  is  perpetually  to  be  conquered. 

My  next  objection  is  its  uncertainty.  Terror  is  not  always 
the  effect  of  force ;  and  an  armament  is  not  a  victory.  If 
you  do  not  succeed,  you  are  without  resource  :  for,  concilia- 
tion failing,  force  remains ;  but  force  failing,  no  further  hope 
of  reconciliation  is  left.  Power  and  authority  are  sometimes 
bought  by  kindness;  but  they  can  never  be  begged  as  alms 
by  an  impoverished  and  defeated  violence. 

1  Essays  on  Croker's  BosweWs  Johnson,     p.  334.     Holt  &  Co.     1893. 


WAYS  OF  REMOVING  ASSERTIVENESS  77 

A  further  objection  is,  that  you  impair  the  object  by  your 
endeavors  to  preserve  it.  The  thing  you  fought  for  is  not 
the  thing  you  recover ;  but  depreciated,  sunk,  wasted,  and 
consumed  in  the  contest.1 

J.  S.  Mill,  in  his  Three  Essays  on  Religion,  asserts :  — . 

No  one,  either  religious  or  irreligious,  believes  that  the 
hurtful  agencies  of  nature,  considered  as  a  whole,  promote  good 
purposes,  in  any  other  way  than  by  inciting  human  rational 
creatures  to  rise  up  and  struggle  against  them. 

This  he  supported  by  deductive  reasoning  as  follows :  — 

If  we  believed  that  those  agencies  were  appointed  by  a 
benevolent  Providence  as  the  means  of  accomplishing  wise 
purposes  which  could  not  be  compassed  if  they  did  not  exist, 
then  everything  done  by  mankind  which  tends  to  chain  up 
these  natural  agencies  or  to  restrict  their  mischievous  opera- 
tion, from  draining  a  pestilential  marsh  down  to  curing  the 
toothache,  or  putting  up  an  umbrella,  ought  to  be  accounted 
impious ;  which  assuredly  nobody  does  account  them,  ...  On 
the  contrary,  the  improvements  on  which  the  civilized  part  of 
mankind  most  pride  themselves,  consist  in  more  successfully 
warding  off  those  natural  calamities  which  if  we  really  believed 
what  most  people  profess  to  believe,  we  should  cherish  as  med- 
icines provided  for  our  earthly  state  by  infinite  wisdom.  Inas- 
much too  as  each  generation  greatly  surpasses  its  predecessors 
in  the  amount  of  natural  evil  which  it  succeeds  in  averting,  our 
condition,  if  the  theory  were  true,  ought  by  this  time  to  have 
become  a  terrible  manifestation  of  some  tremendous  calamity, 
against  which  the  physical  evils  we  have  learnt  to  overmaster, 
had  previously  operated  as  a  preservative.  Any  one,  however, 
who  acted  as  if  he  supposed  this  to  be  the  case,  would  be  more 
likely,  I  think,  to  be  confined  as  a  lunatic,  than  reverenced  as 
a  saint.2 

1  Political  Orations.    Camelot  Series,    pp.  65-66.    W.  Scott.    London. 

2  Three  Essays  on  Religion.     J.  S.  Mill.     p.  32.     H.  Holt  &  Co. 


78  EVIDENCE 

SECTION  2 —  THE  NATURE  OF  EVIDENCE 

Why  men  argue.  We  have  seen  that  opinions  vary  with 
different  individuals  as  the  inheritance  and  the  experience 
in  which  they  arise.  Human  beings  are  so  constituted 
that  these  opinions  not  only  determine  the  conduct  of  a 
man  himself  but  should,  he  thinks,  determine  the  conduct 
of  his  fellow-men.  In  order  to  secure  action  by  others  in 
accord  with  his  own  opinions,  he  betakes  himself  to  argu- 
ment, and  finds  himself  speaking  in  opposition  to  other 
men  who  in  their  turn  are  striving  to  embody  their  ideas 
in  the  conduct  of  their  fellows. 

The  causes  of  disagreement.  The  many  reasons  for  dis- 
agreement, however,  arise  in  a  man's  experience  and  his 
inferences  from  it,  or  in  his  more  or  less  blind  depend- 
ence upon  an  authority  from  whom  he  draws  his  opinion. 
It  may  be  said,  then,  that  men  disagree  for  one  or  more  of 
,  three  reasons:  (1)  because  one  man's  experience  is  differ- 
ent from  that  of  another;  (2)  because  he  draws  his  opin- 
l  ions  from  a  different  authority;  (3)  because  the  inferences 
i  drawn  from  the  same  experience  differ.  A  native  of  Cuba 
cannot  have  the  same  opinions  as  a  native  of  Alaska  on 
account  of  the  difference  of  their  experience.  They  would 
naturally  disagree  as  to  the  proper  expense  for  fuel,  for 
instance.  When  Horace  Greeley's  powerful  individuality 
was  directing  the  New  York  Tribune,  it  was  said  that  in 
the  majority  of  cases  an  hour's  talk  would  show  whether 
a  man  was  a  regular  reader  of  that  paper  or  not,  so  gener- 
ally did  the  paper  shape  the  opinions  of  its  readers.  At 
that  time  heated  arguments  often  arose  between  men  who 
blindly  accepted  Greeley's  views  and  their  neighbors  who 
as  stoutly  defended  the  views  of  the  editor  of  the  Sun  or 


THE  CAUSES  OF  DISAGREEMENT  79 

the  Evening  Post.  The  men  may  have  known  little  or 
nothing  on  the  subject  themselves,  but  they  eagerly  fought 
for  the  opinions  of  their  authority.  How  differently  men 
interpret  the  same  experience  comparison  of  the  evidence 
given  by  Hay,  Bowen,  Anstruther,  Middleton,  etc.  in  Lord 
Erskine's  Defense  of  vrordon  will  illustrate.1  There  was 
a  similar  discrepancy  in  the  accounts  of  the  incidents  of 
the  death  of  the  Prince  Imperial  in  the  Zulu  War. 

He  was  out  as  a  volunteer  with  a  reconnoitering  party. 
They  had  off-saddled  at  a  kraal  and  were  resting,  when  a  band 
of  Zulus  crept  up  through  the  long  grass,  and  suddenly  opened 
fire  and  made  a  rush  forward.  Our  scouts  at  once  took  horse, 
as  a  reconnoitering  party  was  bound  to  do,  and  scampered  off, 
but  the  Prince  was  overtaken  and  killed.  At  the  Court-Mar- 
tial  which  ensued,  the  five  troopers  gave  the  most  conflicting 
accounts  of  particulars  which  an  unskilled  investigator  would 
think  could  not  possibly  have  been  mistaken  by  eye-witnesses 
of  the  same  event.  One  said  that  the  Prince  had  given  the 
order  to  mount  before  the  Zulus  fired :  another  that  he  gave 
the  order  directly  after :  a  third  was  positive  that  he  never 
gave  the  order  at  all,  but  that  it  was  given  after  the  surprise 
by  the  officer  in  command.  One  said  that  he  saw  the  Prince 
vault  into  the  saddle  as  he  gave  the  order :  another  that  his 
horse  bolted  as  he  laid  hold  of  the  saddle,  and  that  he  ran 
alongside  trying  to  get  up.  ...  It  once  happened  to  myself 
in  a  London  street  to  see  a  drunken  woman  thrown  under  a  cab 
by  her  husband.  Two  cabs  were  running  along,  a  four-wheeler 
and  a  hansom :  the  woman  staggered  almost  under  the  first, 
and  was  thrown  under  the  second.  As  it  happened  the  case 
never  got  beyond  the  police  station  to  which  the  parties  were 
conveyed  after  fierce  opposition  from  some  neighbors,  who 
sympathized  entirely  with  the  man.  The  woman  herself, 
when  her  wounds  were  dressed,  acknowledged  the  justice  of 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  111-145. 


80  EVIDENCE 

her  punishment,  and  refused  to  charge  her  husband.  I  was 
all  the  more  willing  to  acquiesce  in  this  because  I  found  that 
while  I  had  the  most  distinct  impression  of  having  seen  the 
four-wheeler  run  over  the  woman's  body,  and  should  have 
been  obliged  to  swear  accordingly,  there  could  be  no  doubt 
that  it  was  really  the  hansom  that  had  done  so.  This  was 
not  only  the  evidence  of  the  neighbors,  which  I  suspected  at 
the  time  of  being  a  trick,  but  of  the  cab  driver,  who  had 
stopped  at  the  moment  to  abide  the  results  of  the  accident. 
I  afterwards  had  the  curiosity  to  ask  an  eminent  police  magis- 
trate, Sir  John  Bridge,  whether  this  illusion  of  memory  on 
my  part  —  which  I  can  only  account  for  by  supposing  that 
my  eyes  had  been  fixed  on  the  sufferer  ^nd  that  I  had  uncon- 
sciously referred  her  injuries  to  the  heavier  vehicle  —  would 
have  entirely  discredited  my  testimony  in  his  Court.  His 
answer  was  that  it  would  not ;  that  he  was  constantly  meet' 
ing  with  such  errors,  and  that  if  he  found  a  number  of  wit? 
nesses  of  the  same  occurrence  exactly  agreed  in  every  particular 
he  would  suspect  that  they  had  talked  the  matter  over  and 
agreed  upon  what  they  were  to  say.  This  was  the  opinion 
of  an  experienced  judge,  a  skilled  critic  of  the  defects  of 
personal  observation.1 

To  disagree  is  always  to  question  a  judgment  or  inference. 
Upon  analysis  of  these  three  causes  of  disagreement  it  may 
be  seen,  however,  that  in  each  case  it  is  really  an  inference 
from  experience  that  is  questioned.  For  instance,  we  see 
a  man  and  hear  his  voice :  we  say  that  a  man  is  speaking, 
and  consider  that  a  fact  and  not  an  inference.  But  to 
be  honest  we  must  confess  that  the  only  fact  is  that  we 
have  received  an  impression  on  our  senses  which  we  infer 
from  past  experience  to  mean  that  a  man  is  speaking. 
Such  inferences  from  sense  impressions  we  call  immediate 

1  Logic  Inductive  and  Deductive.  Wm.  Minto.  pp.  287,  288.  C.  Scrib- 
ner's  Sons.  1894. 


TO  DISAGREE  IS  TO  QUESTION  A  JUDGMENT     81 

inferences.  In  another  case  we  see  a  man  dead  with  a 
bullet-hole  in  his  temple  and  a  revolver  lying  by  his  side. 
Though  this  might  be  an  hallucination,  we,  depending 
upon  immediate  inferences,  regard  it  as  a  fact.  But 
when  we,  relying  upon  past  experiences,  interpret  these 
inferences  to  mean  that  the  man  has  committed  suicide, 
we  are  using  mediate  inferences,  that  is,  interpretations  of 
inferences  from  sense  impressions.  When  a  man  says  that 
it  is  not  a  man  but  a  parrot  that  is  talking  in  the  next 
room,  he  questions  our  inference  or  judgment,  just  as  he 
does  when  he  objects  that  the  man  who  we  suppose  killed 
himself  has  in  reality  been  murdered.  Thus  the  first  and 
the  third  causes  of  disagreement  alike  arise  from  doubt  as  to 
an  inference.  So,  too,  with  the  second  cause,  reliance  upon 
different  authorities.  The  facts  thes"e  authorities  used  were 
themselves  immediate  inferences;  the  interpretation  of  these 
facts,  which  form  the  opinion  of  these  authorities,  were  medi- 
ate inferences  no  less  than  our  own  interpretation  of  facts, 
and  our  reliance  upon  the  competency  and  the  honesty  of 
our  authority  is  itself  the  inference  that  we  draw  from  our 
past  experience  as  to  the  authority.  An  opponent  may 
question  any  or  all  of  these  inferences.  For  instance,  he 
might  have  maintained  that  Greeley  was  an  incompetent 
observer  and  interpreter  of  facts,  that  his  self-interest  was 
so  great  in  a  certain  matter  that  he  was  actually  dishonest 
in  the  views  he  expressed;  or  he  might,  without  impugn- 
ing Greeley's  general  value  as  an  authority,  question  the 
facts  as  facts,  or  the  interpretation  Greeley  put  upon  them 
through  ignorance  of  other  facts.  All  reasoning,  then,  is 
•but  a  series  of  inferences  or  judgments  from  experience,  and 
whenever  an  opponent  questions  evidence  what  he  really 
doubts  is  a  judgment  by  the  witness  or  his  authority. 


82  EVIDENCE 

I  The  necessity  for  sifting  evidence.  Since  all  evidence  - 
the  material  of  proof  —  consists  of  inferences  from  experi- 
ence and  is  open  to  disagreement,  it  is  important  that 
students  train  themselves  in  selecting  and  presenting  evi- 
dence. In  this  study  a  knowledge  of  the  classifications  of 
evidence  and  of  the  various  tests  whereby  weak  evidence 
may  be  distinguished  from  strong  is  essential.  In  acquir- 
ing such  knowledge  of  evidence,  moreover,  there  is  devel- 
oped a  habit  of  scrutiny  which  enables  the  student  to 
notice  quickly  and  accurately  distinctions  and  differences 
that  ordinarily  are  unheeded. 

Such  careful  scrutiny  is  necessary  in  order  that  the  stu- 
dent shall  thoroughly  understand  the  strength  of  both 
sides,  and  shall  not  fail  at  some  important  place  by  over- 
estimating the  value  of  his  own  proof,  or  underestimating 
the  strength  of  that  of  his  opponent.  When  a  writer  is 
seen  to  give  undue  value  to  a  bit  of  evidence  he  loses 
more  than  the  point  at  the  moment  under  consideration; 
he  makes  the  reader  wonder  whether  this  failure  comes 
from  trickiness  that  would  palm  off  evidence  as  convincing 
which  is  not  and  evidence  as  unconvincing  that  is  strong, 
or  from  failure  to  understand  the  case.  Under  either  sup- 
position the  reader,  becoming  suspicious,  may  doubt  the 
convincingness  of  all  that  precedes,  or  the  value  of  all 
that  follows. 

It  is  especially  necessary  that  any  one  who  gathers  mate- 
rial for  discussion  of  some  current  topic  should  feel  this 
need  of  caution  in  using  even  evidence  which  favors  his 
views.  He  will  collect  his  material  from  personal  inter- 
views, from  newspapers,  periodicals,  letters  to  the  press,  and' 
speeches  of  congressmen.  Evidently  all  of  it  cannot  have 
equal  value,  but  apparently  beginners  in  argumentation 


THE  NECESSITY  FOR  SIFTING  EVIDENCE          83 

do  not  understand  how  weak  much  of  it  necessarily  is. 
Most  letters  to  the  press  and  magazine  articles  state,  not 
proof  through  well-selected  evidence,  but  mere-opinion. 
Some  of  the  material  is  signed  only  with  initials,  some  of 
it  is  not  signed.  If  a  student  quotes  any  part  of  such 
articles,  he  uses  not  only  assertion,  but  also  assertion  for 
which  no  one  can  be  held  responsible.  What  possible 
value,  then,  can  it  have  as  evidence?  Even  when  the 
quotation  is  from  a  signed  article,  unless  reasons  for  its 
opinions  be  given,  it  is  of  value  only  if  there  are  grounds 
for  considering  it  as  an  argument  from  authority.  Indeed, 
even  when  the  articles  give  evidential  support  to  their 
statements,  there  is  need  of  close  examination  for  personal 
or  political  bias. 

A  student  who  does  not  weigh  carefully  the  evidence 
for,  as  well  as  against,  him  is  like  a  lawyer  who,  without 
any  previous  knowledge  of  his  witnesses,  hears  their  story 
first  on  the  witness  stand,  and  is  forced  to  let  their  testi- 
mony count  for  what  it  will.  If  they  do  not  prove  what 
he  wishes  to  prove,  if  they  involve  him  in  unexpected 
difficulties,  he  must  not  complain,  for  it  is  his  own  fault. 
The  careful  worker  will  scrutinize,  consider,  and  value 
every  bit  of  evidence  that  comes  to  him,  and  by  throwing 
out,  first,  what  is  plainly  entirely  valueless,  and  secondly 
what,  because  of  other  stronger  evidence  in  his  possession, 
is  for  him  useless,  will  gradually  reduce  his  material  to 
evidence  known  by  his  tests  to  be  valuable  for  his  case. 
Even  this  evidence,  however,  must  consist  of  pieces  of 
differing  values,  and  their  relative  strength  must  be  deter- 
mined if  the  student  is  to  construct  successfully  from  them 
the  mosaic  of  his  argument. 


84  EVIDENCE 


SECTION  3  —  THE  KINDS  OF  EVIDENCE 

The  classification  of  evidence.  A  study  of  the  kinds  of 
evidence  is,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  valuable  as  training. 
In  themselves  the  classifications  may  not  be  important. 
But  though  few  authorities  agree  as  to  the  exact  nomen- 
clature, and  though  the  divisions  often  overlap,  so  that 
a  piece  of  evidence  may  be  placed  in  either  one  of  two 
classes  with  equal  propriety,  yet  this  does  not  lessen  the 
value  of  a  study  of  the  classifications  as  an  aid  to  students 
in  acquiring  the  attitude  of  habitual  scrutiny  which  is  of 
prime  importance  in  sifting  evidence.  Moreover,  some 
classification,  even  if  it  be  imperfect,  is  very  convenient. 
The  following  classification  seems  natural  rather  than 
arbitrary,  and  has  decided  usefulness  as  the  basis  for  the 
^•^  application  of  the  tests  of  evidence. 

Testimonial   and  circumstantial  evidence.1    In  the  first 
place,    evidence   may   readily   lie    classified    in    regard   to 
its  source.     An  argument  is  made  up  of  statements  of 
purport  to  be  facts,  of  statements  of  reasoning,  and 
of  statements  of  opinions  based  upon  the  reasoning  of 

1  Some  writers  prefer  the  division  into  Direct  and  Indirect  Evidence. 
For  the  most  part  this  corresponds  very  closely  to  the  division  into  testi- 
monial and  circumstantial.  Testimonial  evidence  is  in  its  nature  direct, 
circumstantial  is  in  its  nature  indirect.  The  chief  confusion  comes  in 
the  classification  of  "real  evidence,"  —  the  testimony  of  material  objects 
themselves,  —  which  may  be  either  direct  or  indirect.  A  man  is  sued  by 
his  tailor  because  he  refuses  to  take  and  pay  for  a  suit  which  in  his  opinion 
is  ill-fitting.  He  appears  in  court  with  the  suit  on  that  the  jury  may  judge 
for  themselves  whether  it  be  ill-fitting  or  not.  That  is  "real  evidence"  : 
clearly  it  is  also  direct,  but  is  it  also  testimonial  ?  If  so  does  testimonial 
evidence  rest  upon  the  testimony  of  human  beings  ?  It  may  be  said  that 
this  is  no  exception  to  the  rule  that  direct  evidence  is  also  testimonial,  for 
the  argument  is  really  that  drawn  from  the  opinion  of  the  jury  that  the 
suit  is  or  is  not  ill-fitting.  But  fine  distinctions  like  this  need  not  concern 
us  here. 


TESTIMONIAL  AND  CIRCUMSTANTIAL  EVIDENCE     85 

competent  authorities.  It  is  obvious  that  the  value  of  the 
statements  of  fact  and  the  statements  of  opinion  depends 
upon  the  estimate  put  upon  the  human  being  from  whose 
experience  they  originate.1 '  The  value  of  reasoning,  how- 
ever, depends  not  only  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  statements 
of  fact  or  opinion  upon  which  the  reasoning  is  based,  but 
upon  the  cogency  of  the  reasoning  itself.  Thus,  although 
,all  evidence  rests  ultimately  upon  human  experience  it  is 
convenient  to  classify  as  Testimonial  Evidence  that  evi- 
dence which  is  drawn  from  facts  and  the  opinion  of  author- 
ities, that  is,  evidence  in  which  we  are  concerned  solely 
with  the  competency  and  the  honesty  of  human  beings ; 
and  to  classify  as  Circumstantial  Evidence  all  that  large 
class  of  evidence  where  we  hav6  to  draw  inferences  from 
the  facts  or  the  opinions.  Thus  if  a  witness  testifies  that 
he  saw  X  kill  Y,  or  if  an  expert  testifies  that  the  death  of 
Z  was  caused  by  cyanide  of  potassium,  the  conclusions 
drawn  directly  that  X  killed  Y  and  that  the  death  of  Z 
was  caused  by  cyanide  of  potassium  are  based  upon  testi- 
monial evidence,  and  their  value,  if  they  stand  alone, 
depends  simply  upon  the  estimate  we  place  upon  the  com- 
petency and  the  honesty  of  the  witness,  and  we  call  it 
testimonial  evidence.  When,  however,  we  infer  that  X 
in  killing  Y  was  guilty  of  premeditated  murder,  or  that  W 
administered  to  Z  the  fatal  poison,  we  are  depending  upon 
inferences,  and  call  it  circumstantial  evidence.  That  is, 
when  the  evidence  does  not  go  beyond  the  statement  of 
fact  or  opinion  of  a  witness  it  is  testimonial;  when  the 

1  This,  of  course,  is  true  only  as  regards  the  evidence  taken  by  itself. 
All  evidence  is  necessarily  strengthened  or  weakened  by  other  evidence, 
which  is  corroborating  or  contradictory.  But  this  result  comes  from  the 
quantity  and  not  the  quality  of  evidence,  and  the  quality  alone  is  here 
under  discussion. 


86  EVIDENCE 

evidence,  however,  is  extended  by  an  inference  as  to  some- 
thing not  directly  testified  to,  it  becomes  for  our  purposes 
circumstantial  evidence.  Of  course  where  the  inference 
is  from  "real  evidence,"  —  the  testimony  of  material  objects 
themselves,1  —  where  the  person  making  the  inference 
is  using  evidence  given  him  directly  by  his  senses,  the 
inferential  nature  of  circumstantial  evidence  is  still  more 
marked ;  as  in  the  following  by  Professor  Huxley. 

Suppose  that  a  man  tells  you  that  he  saw  a  person  strike 
another  and  kill  him ;  that  is  testimonial  evidence  of  the  mur- 
der. But  it  is  possible  to  have  circumstantial  evidence  of  the 
fact  of  a  murder;  that  is  to  say,  you  may  find  a  man  dying 
with  a  wound  upon  his  head  having  exactly  the  form  and 
character  of  the  wound  which  is  made  by  an  axe,  and,  with 
due  care  in  taking  surrounding  circumstances  into  account, 
you  may  conclude  with  the  utmost  certainty  that  the  man 
has  been  murdered;  that  Ms  death  is  the  consequence  of  a 
blow  inflicted  by  another  man  with  that  implement.2 

Professor  Huxley  has  emphasized  the  distinction  between 
testimonial  and  circumstantial  evidence :  the  following  quo- 
tation shows  their  interdependence*3 

The  two  are  so  interdependent,  that  it  is  only  by  extreme 
examples  that  we  can  dissociate  them;  All  testimonial  evi- 
dence must  be  sustained  by  circumstances,  whilst  all  circum- 
stantial evidence  is  dependent  upon  direct  facts  as  stated  by 
witnesses  past  or  present. 

Let  me  give  you  an  example  of  each,  that  this  may  be  more 
clear  to  your  minds.  Let  us  suppose  that  several  boys  go  to 

1  For  an  example  of  Real  Evidence  that  is  testimonial  rather  than  cir- 
cumstantial, see  note,  p.  84. 

2  Lectures    on   Evolution.      Huxley.      Specimens    of   Argumentation. 
p.  71. 

8  For  greater  clearness,  the  terminology  has  been  slightly  changed. 


TESTIMONIAL   AND  CIRCUMSTANTIAL  EVIDENCE     87 

a  pool  of  water  to  swim.  One  of  these  is  seen  by  his  com- 
panions to  dive  into  the  water,  and  he  does  not  arise.  His 
death  is  reported.  This  is  called  testimonial  evidence.  The 
boy  was  seen  to  drown,  you  are  told,  and  your  judgment  con- 
cedes the  fact  readily.  But  is  the  proposition  proved,  even 
though  you  have  these  several  witnesses  to  the  actual  drown- 
ing ?  Let  us  see.  The  authorities,  later,  drag  the  pool  and 
find  a  body.  The  body  is  taken  to  the  morgue,  and  the  keeper 
there,  an  expert  in  such  matters,  makes  the  startling  assertion 
that  instead  of  a  few  hours,  or  let  us  say  a  day,  the  body  must 
have  been  immersed  for  several  days.  He  concludes  this  from 
circumstantial  evidence.  The  keeper  has  no  positive  knowl- 
edge that  this  particular  body  has  been  under  water  so  long. 
Still  he  has  seen  thousands  of  bodies,  and  none  has  presented 
such  an  appearance  after  so  short  an  interval.  How  shall  we 
judge  between  such  conflicting  evidence?  On  the  one  side 
we  have  testimonial  evidence  which  is  most  positive.  On  the 
other  we  have  circumstantial  evidence  which  is  equally  so. 
Is  the  original  hypothesis  proven  ? 1  Does  not  the  circum- 
stantial evidence  raise  a  doubt  ?  Certainly.  Now  let  us  take 
another  step.  The  witnesses  to  the  drowning  are  called  again, 
and  view  the  body,  and  now  among  ten  of  them,  we  find  one 
who  hesitates  in  his  identification.  At  once  we  find  another 
circumstance  wanting  in  substantiation  of  the  original  claim. 
Now  we  see,  that  all  that  was  really  proved  was,  that  a  boy 
was  drowned ;  and  not  at  all  that  it  was  this  particular  boy 
who  was  found.  But  is  it  proved  that  a  boy  was  drowned 
when  the  boys  were  in  swimming?  How  can  it  be  in  the 
absence  of  a  drowned  body  which  all  can  identify  as  their 
companion's  ?  Now  suppose  that  at  the  last  hour,  the  original 
boy  turns  up  alive,  and  reports  that  he  had  been  washed 
ashore  down  the  stream,  and  subsequently  recovered.  We 
find  that  our  testimonial  evidence,  with  numerous  witnesses 

1  Students  of  Argumentation  are  warned  against  this  word.  ' '  Proved  " 
is  the  past  participle.  Except  in  the  verdict  "not  proven,"  "proven" 
has  no  proper  use. 


88  EVIDENCE 

to  the  actual  fact,  was  entirely  misleading  after  all,  because 
we  had  jumped  to  a  conclusion,  without  duly  considering  the 
attendant  circumstances  of  the  case.  So  it  is  always.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  positive  proof  which  does  not  depend  upon 
circumstances.  The  old  example  may  be  cited  briefly  again. 
If  you  see  one  man  shoot  at  another  and  see  the  other  fall 
and  die,  can  you  say  without  further  knowledge,  that  one 
killed  the  other  with  his  pistol  ?  If  you  do,  you  may  find 
later  that  the  pistol  carried  only  a  blank  cartridge,  and  that 
the  man  died  of  fright. 

It  is  equally  true  of  circumstantial  evidence,  that  without 
some  direct  fact  upon  which  it  depends  it  is  worthless.  As  an 
example  of  this  I  may  as  well  save  your  time  by  introducing 
the  case  at  issue.  If  we  could  show  you  that  the  prisoner 
desired  the  death  of  this  girl ;  that  he  profited  by  her  death ; 
.  .  .  that  she  died  under  circumstances  which  made  the  attend- 
ing physician  suspect  morphine  poisoning  ;  that  as  soon  as  the 
suspicion  was  announced,  the  prisoner  mysteriously  disap- 
peared, and  remained  in  hiding  for  several  days ;  that  he  had 
the  opportunity  to  administer  the  poison ;  that  he  understood 
the  working  of  the  drug  ;  and  other  circumstances  of  a  similar 
nature,  the  argument  would  be  entirely  circumstantial.  All 
this  might  be  true  and  the  man  might  be  innocent.  But, 
selecting  from  this  array  of  suspicious  facts,  the  one  which 
indicates  morphine  as  the  drug  employed,  add  to  it  the  fact 
that  expert  chemists  testify  that  they  find  morphine  in  the 
tissues  of  the  body,  and  you  see,  gentlemen,  that  at  once  this 
single  bit  of  direct  evidence  gives  substantial  form  to  the 
whole.  The  circumstantial  is  strengthened  by  the  testimonial, 
just  as  the  testimonial  is  made  important  by  the  circumstan- 
tial. The  testimony  of  experts  that  poison  was  found  in  a 
body,  though  testimonial  evidence  as  to  the  cause  of  death, 
neither  convicts  the  assassin,  nor  even  positively  indicates 
that  a  murder  has  been  committed.  The  poison  might  have 
reached  the  victim  by  accident.  But  consider  the  attendant 
circumstances,  and  then  we  see  that  a  definite  conclusion  is 


TESTIMONIAL  AND  CIRCUMSTANTIAL  EVIDENCE     89 

inevitable.  It  is  from  the  circumstantial  evidence  only  that 
we  can  reach  the  true  meaning  of  what  direct  testimony 
teaches. 

A  second  classification  —  direct  proof  and  refutation.  A 
second  classification  of  evidence  is  based  upon  the  pur- 
pose for  which  the  evidence  is  used.  This  distinction  has 
been  already  pointed  out  on  pp.  12-13,  where  the  work  of 
the  student  was  divided  into  direct  proof  and  refutation. 
Obviously  either  testimonial  or  circumstantial  evidence 
may  be  used  for  both  purposes,  but  their  handling  will 
be  seen  to  be  somewhat  different  as  the  purpose  varies. 
This  classification  will  be  referred  to  later  in  the  chapter. 
At  present  it  is  sufficient  to  point  it  out  before  considering 
testimonial  and  circumstantial  evidence  in  detail. 

Testimonial  evidence.  Testimonial  evidence  or  direct  evi- 
dence is  so  simple  and  clear  in  its  bearing  upon  the  matter 
in  dispute  that  its  use  and  its  subdivisions  need  not  detain 
us.  It  is  a  flat  statement  that  such  and  such  a  thing  took 
place,  or  that  something  is  so  because  a  recognized  authority 
says  it  is.  We  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  test  the  proba- 
bility or  consistency  of  the  testimony,  and  decide  from  this 
and  from  our  estimate  of  the  witness  whether  his  evidence 
is  to  be  accepted,  rejected,  or  accepted  under  protest  and 
with  reservation.  In  a  later  section  we  shall  consider  the 
tests  to  apply  to  witnesses  to  facts ;  the  tests  of  recognized 
authorities  have  already  been  given  on  pp.  67-68. 

Circumstantial  evidence.  Circumstantial  or  indirect  evi- 
dence is  much  less  simple.  As  it  is  distinguished  from 
testimonial  by  the  presence  of  an  inference  too  obvious  to 
be  disregarded,  it  may  assume  as  many  forms  as  there  are 
kinds  of  inference,  and  admits  of  various  classifications. 
The  only  classification  that  need  long  concern  us  here  is 


90  EVIDENCE 

the  division  into  inductive  and  deductive  argument.  In- 
ductive argument  may  be  broadly  denned  as  inference  from 
particulars  to  a  general  statement.  Deductive  argument, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  an  inference  from  a  general  state- 
ment to  one  less  general  or  to  a  particular.  For  example, 
by  induction  from  our  knowledge  of  an  accumulation  of 
particular  instances  we  arrive  at  the  statement  that  all 
men  are  mortal,  or  that  America  has  won  all  the  races  for 
the  America  cup.  By  deduction  we  reach  the  conclusion 
that  since  all  men  are  mortal,  and  Socrates  is  a  man, 
therefore  Socrates  is  mortal';  or  that  since  all  criminals  are 
a  menace  to  society,  and  some  immigrants  are  criminals, 
therefore  those  immigrants  are  a  menace  to  society. 

Obviously  in  deduction  the  conclusions  are  really  reached 
by  the  use  of  combined  induction  and  deduction,  for  the 
indispensable  generalizations,  "All  men  are  mortal"  and 
"All  criminals  are  a  menace  to  society,"  to  have  any  value 
at  all  must  rest  on.  inductions  from  particulars.  The  induc- 
tion, however,  in  deductive  argument  is  often  so  easily 
made  and  so  readily  accepted  that  the  inductive  part  of 
the  process  is  not  questioned.  If  the  induction  be  ques- 
tioned, however,  it  must  be  tested  in  the  same  fashion  in 
which  we  should  test  any  other  induction. 

Certain  conclusions,  however,  arising  from  induction  and 
deduction  combined  are  conveniently  classed  and  studied 
not  as  deductions,  but  as  inductions;  for  the  assailable 
part  of  the  process  lies  chiefly  in  the  inductive  reasoning. 
These  are  conclusions  drawn  from  one  particular  to  another 
particular.  A  rapidly  falling  barometer  leads  one  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  will  be  a  storm.  The  validity  of  this 
conclusion  rests  upon  the  generalization  that  storms  follow 
the  rapid  fall  of  barometers.  Similarly  in  a  certain  country 


THE   USE   OF   DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  91 

district  it  is  said  that  rain  is  expected  when  a  broom-peddler 
is  seen.  Here  the  fallacious  conclusion  is  only  as  valid  as 
the  induction  that  rain  follows  the  appearance  of  a  broom- 
peddler.  Such  arguments  are  often  designated  as  inductive 
and  they  can  best  be  studied  as  such;  but  it  should  be 
remembered  that  all  inferences  from  particulars  to  other 
particulars  are  really  combined  induction  and  deduction, 
the  deduction,  however,  being  so  simple  that  it  is  almost 
negligible. 

How  unimportant  is  the  deductive  element  in  this  argu- 
ment from  one  particular  to  another  may  be  seen  if  we 
phrase  as  formal  deduction  the  argument  given  above. 
Rapidly  falling  barometers  are  reliable  signs  that  there 
will  be  a  storm ;  this  barometer  is  a  rapidly  falling  barom- 
eter ;  therefore  this  barometer  is  a  reliable  sign  that  there 
will  be  a  storm.  Clearly  the  part  of  the  argument  that  is 
important  is  that  by  which  we  know  whether  or  not  rapidly 
falling  barometers  are  reliable  signs  of  storm,  and  whether 
this  barometer  is  a  rapidly  falling  barometer ;  not  the  argu- 
mentative process  that  shows  us  how,  if  these  two  state- 
ments be  true,  we  may  argue  from  them  that  this  barometer 
is  a  reliable  sign  of  storm. 

The  use  of  deductive  argument.  Deductive  argument, 
depending  as  it  does  for  its  effectiveness  largely  upon  the 
assumption  that  its  fundamental  generalizations  will  be 
accepted  without  argument,  is  especially  serviceable  where 
there  is  close  agreement  between  the  writer  and  his  readers 
in  regard  to  the  principles  underlying  the  argument;  a 
philosopher  or  a  scientist  arguing  with  those  of  the  same 
school  of  thought,  a  lawyer  arguing  before  a  bench  of 
judges,  a  clergyman  trying  to  convince  others  who  accept 
his  fundamental  creed,  —  all  these  can  make  free  use  of 


92  EVIDENCE 

deductive  reasoning  based  on  broad  principles  accepted  by 
their  audience.  But  in  cases  where  there  is  wide  diver- 
gence in  views  the  safer  method  is  to  establish  the  basal 
generalizations  by  rapid  and  well-selected  inductive  rea- 
soning from  significant  special  instances  and  to  use  the 
deductive  process,  if  at  all,  chiefly  to  summarize  results. 

The  great  value  of  deductive  reasoning  is  that  when  the 
premises  of  the  syllogism1  are  once  accepted,  the  deduc- 
tion from  them  is  clear,  concise,  and  cogent.  For  instance, 
twenty  pages  of  Joseph  H.  Choate's  argument  before  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Income  Tax  Case2  are  devoted  to 
the  proof  of  the  premises  in  the  following  syllogism,  which, 
once  the  premises  are  granted,  establishes  in  a  few  lines 
the  point  Mr.  Choate  was  contending  for.  An  unappor-^ 
tioned  direct  tax  is  forbidden  by  the  Constitution;  the 
income  tax  is,  in  part  at  least,  an  unapportioned  direct^ 
tax ;  therefore  the  income  tax  is,  in  part  at  least,  forbidden 
by  the  Constitution. 

This  deductive  form  of  reasoning  is  an  accurate  expres- 
sion of  truth  already  known  rather  than  a  form  of  argu- 
ment whereby  we  arrive  at  new  truths  for  ourselv.es  or 
others,  as  the  syllogism  of  Mr.  Choate  clearly  shows. 
Deduction,  however,  has  a  very  important  place  in  the 

1  Formal  deductive  reasoning  is  usually  phrased  in  the  syllogism, 
informal  deductions  in  the  enthymeme.     The  syllogism  consists  of  three 
statements,  the  -major  premise,  the  minor  premise,  and  the  conclusion,  as 

follows :  — 

Major  Premise,  —  All  men  are  mortal. 

Minor  Premise,  —  Socrates  is  a  man. 
Conclusion,  —  Socrates  is  mortal. 

The  enthymeme  is  a  syllogism  with  one  or  more  of  its  parts  implied  rather 
than  expressed ;  for  instance,  All  men  are  mortal,  therefore  Socrates  is 
mortal ;  or,  This  barometer  is  falling  rapidly,  therefore  there  will  be  a 
storm. 

2  See  The  Forms  of  Prose  Literature.    J.  H.  Gardiner,    pp.  328-349. 


KINDS  OF  INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  93 

science  of  logic,  for  upon  it  depends  the  accurate  expres- 
sion of  the  results  of  correct  thinking.  A  detailed  knowl- 
edge of  the  kinds  of  deductive  reasoning,  —  that  is,  the 
forms  and  classifications  of  the  syllogism,  —  is,  however, 
hardly  necessary  for  us  in  the  art  of  argumentation.  Per- 
taining as  this  knowledge  does  to  theory  rather  than  to 
practice,  it  may  well  be  left  to  the  science  of  logic  to 
which  it  rightly  belongs. 

Inductive  argument  is 


more  generally  used  than  is  deduction  by  itself,  but  it 
moves  more  slowly,  needs  more  facts  to  establish  it,  and  is 
often  less  certain.  It  is  indispensable  where  there  is  not 
agreement  as  to  general  principles  between  the  writer  and 
his  readers.  It  is  especially  useful  in  establishing  general 
laws  or  in  showing  that  matters  in  dispute  really  fall 
under  established  generalizations.  It  may  most  conven- 
iently be  studied  in  three  divisions  which  though  not 
mutually  exclusive  in  theory  can  yet  be  readily  distin- 
guished in  practice:  (1)  Generalization  from  particular 
instances ;  (2)  arguments  based  on  a  causal  relationship, 
—  from  effect  to  cause  or  from  cause  to  effect;  (3)  argu- 
<,.ments  based  on  resemblance. 

Generalization.  The  typical  form  of  inductive  argumen 
or  as  Minto  defines  it,  "  argument  from  the  observed  to  the 
unobserved,"  is  generalization,  —  a  process  whereby  from 
the  observation  of  certain  related  particular  instances  a 
conclusion  is  reached  in  regard  to  a  class.  For  example, 
such  conclusions  as  "All  crows  are  black,"  "The  sun 
never  sets  on  the  Stars  and  Stripes,"  "America  has  won 
all  the  races  for  the  America  cup,"  have  been  reached  by 
generalization.  In  a  perfect  generalization  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  class  have  been  observed  and  the  generalization 


94  EVIDENCE 

has  been  seen  to  be  true  for  each.  Obviously  in  regard  to 
such  generalizations  dispute  seldom  arises.  Men  disagree 
in.  regard  to  imperfect  generalizations  where  the  induction 
is  made  from  the  observation  of  less  than  all  the  members 
of  the  class,  as  in  the  first  generalization  given,  "All 
crows  are  black"  or  in  the  discarded  generalization  "All 
swans  are  white."  The  value  of  an  imperfect  generaliza- 
tion depends  first,  upon  the  relative  size  of  the  unobserved 
part  of  the  class ;  secondly,  upon  the  degree  of  probability 
that  such  a  general  law  exists ;  and  thirdly,  upon  the  fact 
that  the  members  observed  are  fair  and  sufficient  samples 
of  the  class,  and  that  no  exceptions  can  be  discovered.  A 
summer  resident  of  Mount  Desert  ventures  the  statement 
that  for  the  last  forty  years  the  temperature  has  not 
exceeded  100  degrees.  Upon  cross-examination  he  admits 
that  five  summers  in  that  period  he  spent  in  Europe. 
Nevertheless  as  the  relative  size  of  the  unobserved  part  of 
the  class  is  slight,  you  are  inclined  to  trust  the  induction, 
especially  as  there  is  a  likelihood  that  some  such  general 
law  exists.  Much  less  readily  would  you  accept  the  induc- 
tion that  the  four  hundred  voters  on  the  island  were  all 
named  Hall  or  all  had  black  hair,  because  the  summer 
resident  had  observed  that  to  be  true  of  three  hundred 
and  fifty  of  them.  In  such  matters,  general  laws  are 
hardly  likely  to  exist.  Still  less  would  you  accept  these 
inductions  if  the  instances  observed  were  not  fair  and  suf- 
ficient samples  of  their  class ;  that  is,  if  the  voters  were 
observed  in  one  corner  of  the  island  merely,  or  if  you 
knew  that  investigation  concerning  several  fair-haired  men 
who  appeared  to  be  natives  had  been  neglected  by  the 
reasoner.  The  generalization  that  swans  are  white,  resting 
on  wide  observation  of  swans  throughout  the  Northern 


INDUCTION  BASED  ON  CAUSAL  RELATIONSHIP     95 

Hemisphere,  seemed  tenable  when  judged  by  the  three 
tests  of  induction,  until  the  swans  of  Western  Australia 
and  South  America  were  observed.  The  likelihood  of  a 
general  law  as  to  color  being  less,  however,  this  induction 
would,  by  the  second  test,  have  been  less  safe  than  induc- 
tions that  swans  have  wings  or  web  feet.  The  safest  proof 
of  a  general  law  comes  when  the  cause  in  operation  can  be 
clearly  seen.  That  candles  will  go  out  if  they  are  blown 
hard,  is  a  generalization  which  is  very  safe  because  we 
can  readily  see  the  general  law  there  in  operation  that  the 
wind  causes  a  feeble  flame  to  go  out.  The  argument 
often  heard  that  scholarly  men  are  not  good  leaders  is  an 
example  of  that  kind  of  hasty  generalization  which  is  mostxJ 
dangerous  until  it  has  been  tested  to  see  whether  the  cases  ' 
on  which  it  is  based  are  really  fair  and  sufficient  samples 
of  their  class,  and  whether,  as  is  most  likely,  the  arguer 
has  not,  in  his  enthusiasm,  ignored  many  exceptions  which 
might  make  the  generalization  untenable. 

Induction  based  on  a  causal  relationship.  A  form  of  argu- 
ment much  more  common  than  explicit  generalization  is 
the  argument  from  particulars  to  other  particulars  in 
which  the  generalization  though  fundamental  is  implied 
rather  than  expressed.  Of  these  the  most  cogent  are 
those  that  derive  their  force  from  a  causal  relationship 
existing  between  the  particulars,  the  argument  being  either 
from  cause  to  effect  or  from  effect  to  cause.  If  the  tem- 
perature falls  to  zero  and  there  is  a  tub  of  water  out  of 
doors  it  is  an  argument  from  cause  to  effect  to  say  that  the 
water  will  be  frozen  in  a  short  time.  If  smoke  is  seen  it 
is  argument  from  effect  to  cause  to  say  that  there  has  been 
fire.  It  is  well  to  note  here  -that  whereas  the  argument 
from  cause  to  effect  is  strengthened  as  the  causes  increase 


96  EVIDENCE 

that  contribute  to  the  same  effect,  the  contrary  holds  true 
in  regard  to  the  argument  from  effect  to  cause,  as  the 
more  causes  there  are  at  work  to  produce  the  known 
effect  the  harder  it  is  to  prove  the  existence  of  any  one 
cause.  Politicians  who  assert  that  good  or  bad  times  are 
due  to  this  or  that  tariff  bill  forget  this,  and  ignore  the 
multiplicity  of  possible  causes.  Seldom  do  writers  note 
the  presence  of  different  causes  as  keenly  as  does  Mr. 
McCall  in  the  following  quotation. 

I  am  aware  that  there  is  as  yet  no  general  agreement  as  to 
the  cause  of  the  panic  of  1893.  Some  contend  that  commer- 
cial crises  are  sure  to  come  at  certain  intervals,  as  it  were  by 
the  clock,  and  that  the  natural  accumulation  of  business  errors 
during  the  twenty  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the  panic  of 
1873  made  this  particular  crisis  inevitable  when  it  came. 
There  is  reason  for  claiming  that  it  was  largely  in  the  begin- 
ning a  financial  panic,  in  the  nature  of  a  penalty  for  much 
unwise  financial  legislation.  It  is  certain  that  among  the 
first  acute  symptoms  was  a  money  famine,  and  that,  while 
the  wheels  of  the  mills  were  still  turning,  the  banks  of  the 
great  financial  centres  of  the  East  suspended  money  pay- 
ments. Others  claim  that  the  popular  mandate  at  the  elec- 
tion of  1892  for  a  radical  revision  of  tariff  duties  was  the 
substantial  cause.  Perhaps  it  would  not  be  far  from  the 
truth  to  ascribe  it  to  all  three  causes  combined,  with  the  last- 
mentioned  cause  the  least  natural  and  the  least  potent  of 
the  three.1 

The  argument  from  cause  to  effect.  That  the  argument 
from  cause  to  effect  is1  110 1  Unly  very  common  but  very 
important,  is  due  to  the  universal  belief  that  things  do 
not  happen  without  adequate  causes,  and  the  corollary 
therefrom  that  if  adequate  causes  are  present  the  effect  is 

i  Samuel  W.  McCall  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  October,  1904.     p.  551. 


TESTS  OF  ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSE   TO  EFFECT      97 

reasonably  to  be  expected.  The  typical  form  of  this  argu- 
ment is  in  trials  for  murder  where  the  prosecution  are  at 
great  pains  to  show  that  the  prisoner's  previous  character 
and  his  motives  for  the  deed  are  such  as  to  furnish  cause 
for  the  murder.  Daniel  Webster  is  very  careful  about  this 
method  of  proof  in  the  following  :  — 

Joseph  Knapp  had  a  motive  to  desire  the  death  of  Mr. 
White,  and  that  motive  has  been  shown.  He  was  connected 
by  marriage  with  the  family  of  Mr.  White.  His  wife  was 
the  daughter  of  Mrs.  Beckford,  who  was  the  only  child  of  a 
sister  of  the  deceased.  The  deceased  was  more  than  eighty 
years  old,  and  had  no  children.  His  only  heirs  were  nephews 
and  nieces.  He  was  supposed  to  be  possessed  of  a  very  large 
fortune,  which  would  have  descended,  by  law,  to  his  several 
nephews  and  nieces  in  equal  shares;  or,  if  there  was  a  will, 
then  according  to  the  will.  But  as  he  had  two  branches  of 
heirs,  the  children  of  his  brother,  Henry  White,  and  of  Mrs. 
Beckford,  each  of  these  branches,  according  to  the  common 
idea,  would  have  shared  one  half  of  his  property. 

This  popular  idea  is  not  legally  correct.  But  it  is  common, 
and  very  probably  was  entertained  by  the  parties.  Accord- 
ing to  this  idea,  Mrs.  Beckford,  on  Mr.  White's  death  without 
a  will,  would  have  been  entitled  to  one  half  of  his  ample 
fortune  ;  and  Joseph  Knapp  had  married  one  of  her  three 
children.1 

Tests  of  this  argument.  The  value  of  this  argument 
from  'TaTMTto  effect  depends  upon  two  things:  (1)  Were 
the  causes  adequate  to  produce  the  effect  alleged  ?  (2)  Was 
the  operation  of  the  causes  not  interfered  with  by  other 
forces  ?  If  a  man  is  known  to  be  upright  and  good  tem- 
,  it  takes  a  great  deal  to  make  a  jury  believe  that  he 


1  The  Writings  and  Speeches   of  Daniel  Webster.     Vol.  XI,  p.  63. 
Little,  Brown  &  Co.    1903. 


98  EVIDENCE 

committed  murder  no  matter  how  strong  was  the  motive. 
To  them  the  cause  will  seem  inadequate  to  produce  the 
effect.  If  a  man  is  proved  conclusively  to  have  been  a 
hundred  miles  away  when  his  enemy  was  shot,  all  the 
causes  that  can  be  arrayed  to  show  that  he  did  the  shoot- 
ing cannot  outweigh  the  fact  that  his  absence  made  it 
impossible.  The  alibi  completely  interfered  with  the 
operation  of  all  the  causes  alleged. 

The  uncertainty  that  must,  as  a  rule,  exist  as  to 
whether  the  causes  were  really  adequate  to  produce  the 
effect  alleged,  and  whether  no  interfering  force  w.as  at 
work,  makes  the  value  of  the  argument  from  cause  to 
effect  chiefly  preparatory  and  corroboratory.  Webster 
used  the  fact  that  Joseph  Knapp  had  a  strong  motive  to 
commit  the  murder  to  prepare  the  jury  for  other  and 
more  cogent  proof,  not  as  in  itself  conclusive.  Impor- 
tant as  it  is  to  be  able  to  show  that  causes  were  at  work 
that  might  produce  the  effect  in  question,  in  order  to  dis- 
pose men  to  admit  the  possibility  of  our  conclusions,  this 
argument  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  evidence  of  a  less 
uncertain  nature.1 

1  Argument  from  cause  to  effect  is  the  typical  form  of  what  is  usually 
called  "Argument  from  Antecedent  Probability," — a  good  name  for  a 
common  argument.  The  chief  objection  to  it  lies  in  its  close  association 
with  two  very  confusing  classes  of  argument,  "Argument  from  Sign" 
and  "Argument  from  Example," — terms  used  differently  by  almost 
every  writer  on  the  subject.  On  account  of  this  confusion  and  because 
the  classification  has  little  value  for  purposes  of  instruction  aside  from 
the  puzzle  it  produces,  it  has  been  discarded  here.  This  argument  from 
cause  to  effect  is  also  the  typical  form  of  a  priori  argument,  or  argument 
from  events  at  one  time  to  events  at  a  subsequent  time  ;  and  opposed  to 
a  posteriori,  argument  from  events  at  one  time  to  events  at  a  preceding 
time.  This  classification,  though  natural  and  definite,  has  too  little  vital 
connection  with  the  use  to  which  the  argument  is  to  be  put  and  the 
dangers  to  which  it  is  liable  to  seem  significant  in  a  book  of  this  scope. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  EFFECT  TO  CAUSE   99 

The  argument  from  effect  to  cause.  The  argument  fronol 
effect  to  cause  is  probably  the  most,. valuable  of  all  the 
forms  of  circumstantial  evidence.  It  draws  its  strength 
from  the  universal  belief  in  causation  and  from  the  fact 
that  it  is  not  usually  difficult  to  ascertain  with  approxi- 
mate accuracy  what  were  the  causes  which  produced  cer- 
tain effects.  Indeed  the  very  ease  with  which  causes  can 
usually  be  singled  out  leads  people  to  attach  undue  weight 
to  this  argument  where  keen  judgment  would  see  that  so 
many  causes  are  at  work  that  it  is  unsafe  to  select  any 
as  surely  present.  The  venders  of  patent  medicines  take 
advantage  of  the  popular  susceptibility  to  this  argument 
to  convince  the  public  that  the  cause  of  B's  wonderful 
recovery  was  the  marvelous  curative  power  possessed  by 
a  certain  patent  medicine,  despite  the  fact  that  many  other 
causes  were  doubtless  contributing  to  the  cure.  _TheiiaIue 
of  the  argument  from  effect  to  cause  then  depends  upon 
two  things :  (1)  Was  the  alleged  cause  adequate  to  pro- 
duce the  known  effect?  (2)  Can  all  other  possible  causes 
be  so  far  eliminated  that  you  can  be  sure  the  one  in  ques- 
tion was  present?  You  see  A  discharge  a  pistol  at  B  and 
see  B  fall  dead.  Forgetful  of  these  limitations,  you  say 
that  B  was  killed  by  a  bullet  from  A's  pistol.  When  you 
find  later  that  the  cartridge  was  undoubtedly  a  blank  one, 
you  recognize  that  the  cause  you  assigned  was  inadequate 
to  produce  the  result  alleged,  and  you  conclude  that  an- 
other cause  was  operative,  namely  heart  disease.  In  this 
you  may  err,  for  the  physician  may  prove  that  death  was 
caused  by  a  powerful  poison  taken  a  few  minutes  before. 
The  argument  from  effect  to  cause  is  not  final,  then,  until 
all  other  possible  causes  have  been  eliminated.  When 
you  see  Smoke  it  is  not  unsafe  to  argue  that  there  has 


100  EVIDENCE 

been  fire,  but  in  the  multiplicity  "of  causes  for  fire  it  is 
unsafe  to  argue  that  the  fire  proves  friction,  spontaneous 
combustion,  an  electric  spark,  contact  with  another  fire, 
or  a  sulphur  match.  However,  in  spite  of  these  weak- 
nesses that  should  be  guarded  against,  at  its  best  the 
argument- is  decidedly  cogent,  for  it  rests  upon  a  funda- 
mental belief  of  the  human  mind,  —  that  every  effect 
has  its  adequate  cause. 

The  strength  of  this  argument  from  effect  to  cause  is 
increased  if  there  are  found  a  number  of  effects  all  point- 
ing to  the  same  cause.  This  is  seen  in  the  circumstantial 
evidence  of  the  courts,  in  which  each  effect  might  have 
been  due  to  several  causes,  but  when  a  dozen  or  more 
effects  are  noted  all  of  which  might  have  been  produced 
by  the  same  cause  it  is  easy  to  be  convinced  that  the 
cause  alleged  must  have  been  operative.  Such  a  heaping 
up  of  the  effects  of  conspiracy  Daniel  Webster  gives  in 
the  following  paragraph.  ' 

Let  me  ask  your  attention,  in  the  first  place,  to  those 
appearances,  on  the  morning  after  the  murder,  which  have 
a  tendency  to  show  that  it  was  done  in  pursuance  of  a  pre- 
concerted plan  of  operation.  What  are  they  ?  A  man  was 
found  murdered  in  his  bed.  No  stranger  had  done  the  deed, 
no  one  unacquainted  with  the  house  had  done  it.  It  was 
apparent  that  somebody  within  had  opened,  and  that  some- 
body without  had  entered.  There  had  obviously  and  cer- 
tainly been  concert  and  cooperation.  The  inmates  of  the 
housl  were  not  alarmed  when  the  murder  was  perpetrated. 
The  assassin  had  entered  without  any  riot  or  any  violence. 
He^had  found  the  way  prepared  before  him.  The  house  had 
been  previously  opened.  The  window  was  unbarred  from 
within,  and  its  fastening  unscrewed.  There  "was  a  lock  on 
the  door  of  the  chamber  in  which  Mr.  White  slept,  but  the 


ARGUMENT  BASED  ON   RESEMLACE  tfi 

key  was  gone.  It  had  been  taken  away  and  secreted.  The 
footsteps  of  the  murderer  were  visible,  outdoors,  tending 
toward  the  window.  The  plank  by  which  he  entered  the 
window  still  remained.  The  road  he  pursued  had  been  thus 
prepared  for  him.  The  victim  was  slain,  and  the  murderer 
had  escaped.  Everything  indicated  that  somebody  within 
had  cooperated  with  somebody  without.  Everything  pro- 
claimed that  some  of  the  inmates,  or  somebody  having  access 
to  the  house,  had  had  a  hand  in  the  murder.  On  the  face  of 
the  circumstances,  it  was  apparent,  therefore,  that  this  was 
a  premeditated,  concerted  murder;  that  there  had  been  a 
conspiracy  to  commit  it.1 

These  two  arguments  from  effect  to  cause  and  from 
cause  to  effect  are  often  combined  to  give  us  an  argument 
from  one  effect  to  another  effect  of  the  same  cause.  For 
instance  a  low  barometer  furnishes  argument  for  a  storm, 
not  because  it  causes  or  is  caused  by  the  bad  weather, 
but  because  the  atmospheric  condition  .that  causes  a  low 
barometer  is  one  of  the  causes  that  often  result  in  a 
storm. 

Argument  based  on  resemblance.  It  is  convenient 
group  all  argumentsTfom  particulars  that  do  not  fall'  und 
generalization  or  under  arguments  based  ®n  a  causal  rela- 
tionship, but  which  are  based  on  the  resemblance  of  past 
experience  to  the  thing  in  question,  as  arguments  from 
resemblance.  This  resemblance,  however,  as  will  be 
explained  shortly,  to  have  probative  value  must  hold  in 
all  particulars  essentially  connected  with  the  point  under 
discussion  but  not  necessarily  in  other  particulars. 

Franklin  used  this  argument  from  resemblance  at  the 
Constitutional  Convention  in  support  of  his  contention 

1  The  Writings  and  Speeches  of  Daniel  Webster.  Vol.  XI,  p.  62. 
Little,  Brown  £  Co.  1903. 


:  /.%  .  :  EVIDENCE 

that  there  was  no  necessity  of  paying  salaries  to  the 
President  and  other  executive  officials  of  the  United 
States. 

It  may  be  imagined  by  some  that  this  is  an  Utopian  idea, 
and  that  we  can  never  find  men  to  serve  us  in  the  executive 
department,  without  paying  them  well  for  their  services.  I 
conceive  this  to  be  a  mistake.  Some  existing  facts  present 
themselves  to  me,  which  incline  me  to  a  contrary  opinion. 
The  high  sheriff  of  a  county  in  England  is  an  honorable  office/ 
but  it  is  not  a  profitable  one.  It  is  rather  expensive,  and 
therefore  not  sought  for.  But  yet  it  is  executed,  and  well 
executed,  and  usually  by  some  of  the  principal  gentlemen  of 
the  county.  In  France,  the  office  of  counselor,  or  member 
of  their  judiciary  parliaments,  is  more  honorable.  It  is  there- 
fore purchased  at  a  high  price ;  there  are  indeed  fees  on  the 
law  proceedings,  which  are  divided  among  them,  but  these 
fees  do  not  amount  to  more  than  three  per  cent  on  the  sum 
paid  for  the  place.  Therefore,  as  legal  interest  is  there  at 
five  per  cent,  they  in  fact  pay  two  per  cent  for  being  allowed 
to  do  the  judiciary  business  of  the  nation,  which  is  at  the 
same  time  entirely  exempt  from  the  burden  of  paying  them 
any  salaries  for  their  services.  I  do  not,  however,  mean  to 
recommend  this  as  an  eligible  mode  for  our  judiciary  depart- 
ment. I  only  bring  the  instance  to  show,  that  the  pleasure 
of  doing  good  and  serving  their  country,  and  the  respect  such 
conduct  entitles  them  to,  are  sufficient  motives  with  some 
.minds,  to  give  up  a  great  portion  of  their  time  to  the  public, 
without  the  mean  inducement  of  pecuniary  satisfaction. 

To  bring  the  matter  nearer  home,  have  we  not  seen  the 
greatest  and  most  important  of  our  offices,  that  of  general  of 
our  armies,  executed  for  eight  years  together,  without  the 
smallest  salary,  by  a  patriot  whom  I  will  not  now  offend  by 
any  other  praise ;  and  this,  through  fatigues  and  distresses,  in 
common  with  the  other  brave  men,  his  military  friends  and 


ARGUMENT  BASED   ON  RESEMBLANCE  103 

companions,  and  the  constant  anxieties  peculiar  to  his  station? 
And  shall  we  doubt  finding  three  or  four  men  in  all  the  United 
States,  with  public  spirit  enough  to  bear  sitting  in  peaceful 
counsel,  for  perhaps  an  equal  term,  merely  to  preside  over 
our  civil  concerns,  and  see  that  our  laws  are  duly  executed? 
Sir,  I  have  a  better  opinion  of  our  country.  I  think  we  shall 
never  be  without  a  sufficient  number  of  wise  and  good  men 
to  undertake,  and  execute  well  and  faithfully,  the  office  in 
question.1 

In  his  Defense  of  Evans,  Lord  Mansfield  used  the  argu- 
ment from  resemblance  to  previous  cases  to  prove  that 
Allan  Evans,  the  defendant,  was  probably  chosen  to  the 
office  of  sheriff  for  the  very  reason  that  he  could  not 
legally  serve,  but  might  be  fined  for  his  inability. 

But,  were  I  to  deliver  my  own  suspicion,  it  would  be,  that 
they  did  not  so  much  wish  for  their  services  as  their  fines. 
Dissenters  have  been  appointed  to  this  office,  one  who  was 
blind,  another  who  was  bed-ridden  ;  not,  I  suppose,  on  account 
of  their  being  fit  and  able  to  serve  the  office.  No :  they  were 
disabled  both  by  nature  and  by  law. 

We  had  a  case  lately  in  the  courts  below,  of  a  person  chosen 
mayor  of  a  corporation  while  he  was  beyond  seas  with  his 
Majesty's  troops  in  America,  and  they  knew  him  to  be  so. 
Did  they  want  him  to  serve  the  office  ?  No ;  it  was  impos- 
sible. But  they  had  a  mind  to  continue  the  former  mayor 
a  year  longer,  and  to  have  a  pretense  for  setting  aside  him 
who  was  now  chosen,  on  all  future  occasions,  as  having  beeia 
elected  before. 

In  the  case  before  your  Lordships,  the  defendant  was  by 
law  incapable  at  the  time  of  his  pretended  election ;  and  it  is 
my  firm  persuasion  that  he  was  chosen  because  he  was  inca- 
pable. If  he  had  been  capable,  he  had  not  been  chosen,  for 

1  The  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin.  Jared  Sparks.  Vol.  V,  pp.  147, 
148. 


104  EVIDENCE 

they  did  not  want  him  to  serve  the  office.  They  chose  him 
because,  without  a  breach  of  the  law,  and  a  usurpation  on  the 
Crown,  he  could  not  serve  the  office.  They  chose  him,  that 
he  might  fall  under  the  penalty  of  their  by-law,  made  to  serve 
a  particular  purpose ;  in  opposition  to  which,  and  to  avoid 
the  fine  thereby  imposed,  he  hath  pleaded  a  legal  disability, 
grounded  on  two  acts  of  Parliament.  As  I  am  of  opinion  that 
his  plea  is  good,  I  conclude  with  moving  your  Lordships, 
"That  the  judgment  be  affirmed." 

TfilRlifi  ftf  tfr1g  qrfT1irr1fir*  The  convincingness  of  the  argu- 
ment from  resemblance  is  due  to  the  belief,  practically 
universal,  that  objects  which  resemble  each  other  in  some 
respects  connected  with  the  point  in  discussion  are  likely 
to  resemble  each  other  in  further  respects.  That  trust  in 
this  argument  may  not  be  misplaced  it  is  essential  that 
the  argument  be  in  reality  what  it  pretends  to  be,  —  an 
argument  from  a  parallel  state  of  things,  that  is,  a  state 
alike  in  all  particulars  essential  to  the  point  under  discus- 
sion. To  insure  this  parallelism,  however,  is  by  no  means 
easy.  In  the  first  place,  the  resemblance  may  be  not  real 
but  specious.  "  Appearances  are  deceitful "  is  an  adage 
that  cannot  be  too  firmly  kept  in  mind  in  dealing  with 
this  argument.  Only  the  mind  trained  in  analysis  can 
surely  separate  the  true  from  the  false  here,  for  specious 
resemblances  confront  the  arguer  at  every  turn.  Macaulay 
in  his  speech  on  the  Reform  Bill  lays  bare  in  scathing 
fashion  an  apparent  resemblance  which  really  established 
no  parallel  state  of  things. 

What  facts  does  my  honorable  friend  produce  in  support 
of  his  opinion?  One  fact  only,  and  that  a  fact  which  has 
absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  The  effect  of 
this  reform,  he  tells  us,  would  be  to  make  the  House  of 
Commons  more  powerful.  It  was  all-powerful  once  before, 


TESTS  OF  ARGUMENT   BASED  ON  RESEMBLANCE     105 

in  the  beginning  of  1649.  Then  it  cut  off  the  head  of  the 
king,  and  abolished  the  House  of  Peers.  Therefore,  if  it 
again  has  the  supreme  power,  it  will  act  in  the  same  manner. 
Now,  sir,  it  was  not  the  House  of  Commons  that  cut  off  the 
head  of  Charles  the  First;  nor  was  the  House  of  Commons 
then  all-powerful.  It  had  been  greatly  reduced  in  numbers 
by  successive  expulsions.  It  was  under  the  absolute  domin- 
ion of  the  army.  A  majority  of  the  House  was  willing  to 
take  the  terms  offered  by  the  king.  The  soldiers  turned  out 
the  majority  ;  and  the  minority,  not  a  sixth  part  of  the  whole 
House,  passed  those  votes  of  which  my  honorable  friend 
speaks,  —  votes  of  which  the  middle  classes  disapproved  then, 
and  of  which  they  disapprove  still.1 


In  the  second  plajifi^^tfia^^i^JMaemblaac&J^  clearly 
not  a  specious  one,  "if  the  object  to  which  we  infer  is 
known  to  possess  some  property  incompatible  with  the 
property  inferred,  the  general  resemblance  counts  for 
nothing.  The  moon  has  no  atmosphere,  and  we  know 
that  air  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  life.  Hence, 
however  much  the  moon  may  resemble  the  earth,  we  are 
debarred  from  concluding  that  there  are  living  creatures 
on  the  moon  such  as  we  know  to  exist  on  the  earth."  2 
That  is,  the  resemblance  here  breaks  down  in  an  essential 
particular.  The  argument  from  resemblance,  therefore, 
even  if  the  resemblance  be  real,  can  have  by  itself  no 
probative  value  if  the  resemblance  breaks  down  in  a  par- 
ticular essential  to  the  point  under  discussion.  It  may, 
however,  be  effectively  used  as  illustration. 

One  form  of  the  argument  from  resemblance  that  needs 
special  attention  because  of  its  liability  to  misuse  is  what 

1  Representative  British  Orations.     Vol.  Ill,  pp.  84-85.     1884.     Lord 
Macaulay  on  the  Reform  Bill. 

2  Logic  Inductive  and  Deductive.     Win.  Minto.     pp.  369-370. 


106  EVIDENCE 

Whately  called  the  "  argument  from  analogy."  In  these 
arguments  the  resemblance  is  not  so  much  in  the  things 
themselves  as  in  the  relations  in  which  the  things  stand 
to  other  things.  "  Thus  an  egg  and  a  seed  are  not  in 
themselves  alike,  but  bear  a  like  relation  to  the  parent 
bird  and  to  her  future  nestling,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to 
the  old  and  young  plant  on  the  other,  respectively."  l  Of 
this  argument  Mill  says  :  — 

In  this  sense,  when  a  country  which  has  sent  out  colonies 
is  termed  the  mother  country,  the  expression  is  analogical, 
signifying  that,  the  colonies  of  the  country  stand  in  the  same 
relation  to  her  in  which  children  stand  to  their  parents.  And 
if  any  inference  be  drawn  from  this  resemblance  of  relations, 
as,  for  instance,  that  the  same  obedience  or  affection  is  due 
from  colonies  to  the  mother  country  which  is  due  from  chil- 
dren to  a  parent,  this  is  called  reasoning  by  analogy.  Or  if  it 
be  argued  that  a  nation  is  most  beneficially  governed  by  an 
assembly  elected  by  the  people,  from  the  admitted  fact  that 
other  associations  for  a  common  purpose,  such  as  joint  stock 
companies,  are  best  managed  by  a  committee  chosen  by  the 
parties  interested ;  this  is  an  argument  from  analogy  in  Arch- 
bishop Whately's  sense,  because  its  foundation  is  not,  that 
a  nation  is  like  a  joint  stock  company,  or  Parliament  like  a 
board  of  directors,  but  that  Parliament  stands  in  the  same 
relation  to  the  nation  in  which  a  board  of  directors  stands  to 
a  joint  stock  company.  Now,  in  an  argument  of  this  nature, 
there  is  no  inherent  inferiority  of  conclusiveness.  Like  other 
arguments  from  resemblance,  it  may  amount  to  nothing,  or  it 
may  be  a  perfect  and  conclusive  induction.  The  circumstance 
in  which  the  two  cases  resemble,  may  be  capable  of  being 
shown  to  be  the  material  circumstance;  to  be  that  on  which 
all  the  consequences,  necessary  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
the  particular  discussion,  depend.  In  the  case  in  question,  the 

1  Elements  of  Rhetoric.     Whately.     Part  I,  Chap.  II,  Sect.  VII. 


TESTS  OF   ARGUMENT  BASED  ON  RESEMBLANCE     107 

resemblance  is  one  of  relation ;  the  fundamentum  relationis 
being  the  management,  by  a  few  persons,  of  affairs  in  which 
a  much  greater  number  are  interested  along  with  them. 
Now,  some  may  contend  that  this  circumstance  which  is  com- 
mon to  the  two  cases,  and  the  various  consequences  which 
follow  from  it,  have  the  chief  share  in  determining  all  those 
effects  which  make  up  what  we  term  good  or  bad  administra- 
tion. If  they  can  establish  this,  their  argument  has  the  force 
of  a  rigid  induction :  if  they  cannot,  they  are  said  to  have 
failed  in  proving  the  analogy  between  the  two  cases ;  a  mode 
of  speech  which  implies  that  when  the  analogy  can  be  proved, 
the  argument  founded  upon  it  cannot  be  resisted.1 

In  other  words,  to  be  a  valid  argument  the  analogy 
must  hold  true  in  all  particulars  essential  to  the  point 
under  discussion.  "  Carlyle's  saying  that  a  ship  could 
never  be  taken  round  Cape  Horn  if  the  crew  were  con- 
sulted every  time  the  captain  proposed  to  alter  the  course, 
if  taken  seriously  as  an  analogical  argument  against  Repre- 
sentative Government,  is  open  to  the  objection  that  the 
differences  between  a  ship  and  a  State  are  too  great  for 
any  argument  from  the  one  to  the  other  to  be  of  value." ' 
For,  to  mention  merely  two  of  the  many  essential  differ- 
ences, in  the  first  place  the  ship  is  not  sailing  for  the  com- 
mon benefit  of  the  crew  as  a  State  is  administered  for  the 
good  of  the  people,  and  the  crew's  inferiority  in  judgment 
to  the  captain  is  marked,  whereas  the  best  representatives 
of  the  people  are  very  likely  inferior  to  none  in  their 
judgment  of  the  policy  of  a  State. 

Macaulay  thus  pointed  out  a  similar  false  analogy :  — 

"  If,"  they  say,  "  free  competition  is  a  good  thing  in  trade, 
it  must  surely  be  a  good  thing  in  education.  The  supply  of 

*  System  of  Logic.     J.  S.  Mill.     p.  332.     1846. 

2  Logic  Inductive  and  Deductive.     Wm.  Minto.     p.  373. 


108  EVIDENCE 

other  commodities,  sugar,  for  example,  is  left  to  adjust  itself 
to  tlie  demand ;  and  the  consequence  is,  that  we  are  better 
supplied  with  sugar  than  if  the  Government  undertook  to 
supply  us.  Why  then  should  we  doubt  that  the  supply  of 
instruction  will,  without  the  intervention  of  the  Government, 
be  found  equal  to  the  demand  ?  " 

Never  was  there  a  more  false  analogy.  Whether  a  man  is 
well  supplied  with  sugar  is  a  matter  which  concerns  himself 
alone.  But  whether  he  is  well  supplied  with  instruction  is  a 
matter  which  concerns  his  neighbors  and  the  State.  If  he 
cannot  afford  to  pay  for  sugar,  he  must  go  without  sugar. 
But  it  is  by  no  means  fit  that,  because  he  cannot  afford  to  pay 
for  education,  he  should  go  without  education.  Between  the 
rich  and  their  instructors  there  may,  as  Adam  Smith  says,  be 
free  trade.  The  supply  of  music  masters  and  Italian  masters 
may  be  left  to  adjust  itself  to  the  demand.  But  what  'is  to 
become  of  the  millions  who  are  too  poor  to  procure  without 
assistance  the  services  of  a  decent  schoolmaster  ? l 

It  is  because  of  the  great  difficulty  in  securing  this 
resemblance  in  all  vital  particulars  that  Professor  Genung 
gives  the  following  warning  even  while  commenting  on 
the  great  value  of  the  arguments  from  resemblance.  They 
"are  best  applied' to  those  general  truths  which  do  not 
require  to  be  verified  so  much  as  to  be  illustrated;  their 
office  ...  is  mainly  expository.  Hence  we  find  them  most 
employed  in  enforcing  the  large  and  cogent  principles  of 
conduct,  polity,  morals,  practical  life.  Of  example  [resem- 
blance to  things  past]  Burke  says  that  it  is  *  the  only  argu- 
ment of  effect -in  civil  life.'  Its  power  ...  is  due  to  the 
fact  that,  as  Burke  asserts  in  another  place,  'example  is 
the  school  of  mankind,  and  they  will  learn  at  no  other.'  "2 

1  Speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  April  19,  1847.     The  Works  of 
Lord  Macaulay.     Trevelyan.     Vol.  VIII,  p.  393. 

2  Practical  Rhetoric.     Genung.     p.  423.     Ginn  &  Company. 


VALUE  OF  THIS  STUDY  OF  EVIDENCE  109 

Summary  of  the  kinds  of  evidence.  Evidence,  as  we  have 
seen,  consisting  of  facts,  the  opinions  of  authorities,  and 
reasoning  (inferences  from  the  facts  or  opinions)  can  be 
classified  as  testimonial  and  circumstantial,  facts  and  opin- 
ions being  testimonial  and  inferences  being  circumstantial. 
Testimonial  evidence  needs  no  subdivision  beyond  the 
natural  division  into  facts  and  the  opinions  of  authorities^ 
since  the  same  tests  are  applicable  to  all  witnesses  and  to 
all  authorities.  Circumstantial  evidence,  however,  can  be 
more  surely  tested  If  we  subdivide  it  into  deductive  and 
inductive  reasoning.  Deductive  reasoning,  moreover,  for 
our  purposes  may  be  tested  without  considering  the  sub- 
divisions which  formal  logic  applies  to  it.  Induc^ve,  jfiason- 
ing,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  helpful  to  separate  somewhat 
arbitrarily  into  generalizations,  arguments" t)ased,  on  a  causal 
relationship,  and  arguments  based  on  resemblance.  In  the 
section  that  follows  it  will  be  well  to. Bear  these  classifica- 
tions in  mind,  for  they  are  helpful  as  guides  to  the  tests  to 
be  applied. 

Value  of  this  knowledge.  "  True  it  is  that  in  the  case  of 
the  practical  inquirer,  who  is  endeavoring  to  ascertain  facts 
not  for  the  purposes  of  science  but  for  those  of  business, 
such  for  instance  as  the  advocate  or  the  judge,  the  chief 
difficulty  is  one  in  which  the  principles  of  induction  will 
afford  him  no  assistance.  It  lies  not  in  making  his  induc- 
tions but  in  the  selection  of  them ;  in  choosing  from  among 
all  general  propositions  ascertained  to  be  true,  those  which 
furnish  him  with  marks  by  which  he  may  trace  whether 
the  given  subject  possesses  or  not  the  predicate  in  question. 
In  arguing  a  doubtful  question  of  fact  before  a  jury,  the 
general  propositions  or  principles  to  which  the  advocate 
appeals  are  mostly,  in  themselves,  sufficiently  trite,  and 


110  EVIDENCE 

assented  to  as  soon  as  stated:  his  skill  lies  in  bringing  his 
case  under  those  propositions  or  principles ;  in  calling  to 
mind  such  of  the  known  or  recognized  maxims  of  proba- 
bility as  admit  of  application  to  the  case  in  hand,  and 
selecting  from  among  them  those  best  adapted  to  his  ob- 
ject. Success  is  here  dependent  upon  natural  or  acquired 
sagacity,  aided  by  knowledge  of  the  particular  subject, 
and  of  subjects  allied  with  it.  Invention,  though  it  can 
be  cultivated,  cannot  be  reduced  to  rule;  there  is  no 
science  which  will  enable  a  man  to  bethink  himself  of 
that  which  will  suit  his  purpose. 

"  But  when  he  has  thought  of  something,  science  can 
tell  him  whether  that  which  he  has  thought  of  will  suit 
his  purpose  or  not.  The  inquirer  or  arguer  must  be 
guided  by  his  own  knowledge  and  sagacity  in  his  choice 
of  the  inductions  out  of  which  he  will  construct  his 
argument.  But  the  validity  of  the  argument  when  con- 
structed, depends  upon  principles  and  must  be  tried  by 
tests  which  are  the  same  for  all  descriptions  of  inquiries, 
whether  the  result  be  to  give  A  an  estate,  or  to  enrich 
science  with  a  new  general  truth.  In  the  one  case  and 
in  the  other,  the  senses,  or  testimony,  must  decide  on  the 
individual  facts ;  the  rules  of  the  syllogism  will  determine 
whether,  those  facts  being  supposed  correct,  the  case  really 
falls  within  the  formulae  of  the  different  inductions  under 
which  it  has  been  successively  brought;  and  finally  the 
legitimacy  of  the  inductions  themselves  must  be  decided 
by  other  rules."  1 

These  tests  of  evidence,  both  testimonial  and  circum- 
stantial, whether  deductive  or  inductive,  the  student  must 
study  in  the  next  section  to  know  when  it  is  safe  to  use 

1 A  System  of  Logic.     John  Stuart  Mill.     pp.  172-173.     1846. 


TESTING  THE  STATEMENTS  OF  WITNESSES      111 

each  kind  of  argument  and  how  to  select  intelligently 
from  the  large  mass  of  evidence  bad  and  good  that  lies 
before  him. 


SECTION  4  —  TESTS  OF  EVIDENCE 
I.   TESTING  THE  STATEMENTS  OF  WITNESSES 

When  a  man  makes  an  assertion  which  a  student  does 
not  understand,  or  does  not  wish  to  believe,  what  should 
be  his  first  steps  in  attacking  the  evidence  ?  Suppose  the 
student  is  discussing  a  football  game  with  a  friend  who 
says :  "  Probably  there  was  unfair  tackling  in  the  football 
game."  "I  do  not  believe  that.  Why  do  you  think  so? " 
the  student  answers.  The  friend  then  says  :  "  Because  an 
unfair  tackle  at  just  that  point  in  the  game  was  enough 
to  save  the  day,  and  that  motive  has  in  past  cases  caused 
unfair  tackling."  The  student,  unwilling  to  give  in,  will 
first  look  at  these  two  reasons  to  see  if  there  is  anything 
in  them  to  attack.  Suppose  that  he  grants  the  second 
statement,  but  says  that  he  cannot  believe  that  even  an 
unfair  tackle  could  have  saved  the  game  in  the  crisis 
named.  Then  he  says:  "That  does  not  seem  to  me  in 
accordance  with  ordinary  experience  —  you  must  give  me 
proof  that  it  is."  Or  he  may  say:  "I  cannot  believe  this, 
because  we  already  know  other  circumstances  which  show 
that  this  was  not  the  only  hope  —  what  you  say  does  not 
agree  with  the  other  facts  already  known  in  regard  to  this 
case."  Or  he  may  object :  "  Your  statement  is  in  itself 
contradictory;  therefore  I  cannot  believe  it."  That  is,  a 
statement,  a  bit  of  testimonial  evidence,  may  in  itself  be 
questioned  on  any  one  of  these  three  grounds:  "Js  it 


112  EVIDENCE 

consistent  with  ordinary  experience  ;  with  the  facts  already 
known  concerning  the  case;  is  it  consistent  with  itself?"  I 

Testimony  should  be  consistent  with  ordinary  experience. 
When  John  Mandeville  writes  of  beings  who  have  no 
heads,  but  have  eyes  and  mouths  between  their  shoulders, 
when  he  talks  of  dog-faced  men,  a  reader  refuses  to  take 
his  words  for  more  than  fairy  tales,  because  they  are  not 
consistent  with  human  experience. 

The  following  quotation  from  A  Roman  Lawyer  in  Jeru- 
salem, a  poetic  plea  in  behalf  of  Judas,2  is  simply  a  state- 
ment of  the  details  in  his  career,  which  seem,  if  he  were 
a  criminal,  contrary  to  ordinary  experience. 

Was  he  a  villain  lost  to  sense  of  shame  ? 

Ay,  so  say  John  and  Peter  and  the  rest ; 

And  yet  —  and  yet  this  tale  that  Lysias  tells 

Weighs  with  me  more  the  more  I  ponder  it ; 

For  thus  I  put  it :  Either  Judas  was, 

As  John  affirms,  a  villain  and  a  thief, 

A  creature  lost  to  shame  and  base  at  heart  — • 

Or  else,  which  is  the  view  which  Lysias  takes, 

He  was  a  rash  and  visionary  man 

Whose  faith  was  firm,  who  had  no  thought  of  crime, 

But  whom  a  terrible  mistake  drove  mad. 

Take  but  John's  view,  and  all  to  me  is  blind. 

Call  him  a  villain  who,  with  greed  of  gain, 
For  thirty  silver  pieces  sold  his  Lord. 
Does  not  the  bribe  seem  all  too  small  and  mean  ? 
He  held  the  common  purse,  and,  were  he  thief, 
Had  daily  power  to  steal,  and  lay  aside 

1  Practical  Rhetoric.     Genung.     p.  410.     Ginn  &  Company.    1893. 

2  A  Eoman  Lawyer  in  Jerusalem.    W.  W.  Story,    pp.  12-14-    Colby  & 
Rich,  Boston. 


CONSISTENCY  IN  TESTIMONY  113 

A  secret  and  accumulating  fund. 
So  doing,  he  had  nothing  risked  of  fame, 
While  here  he  braved  the  scorn  of  all  the  world. 
Besides,  why  chose  they  for  their  almoner 
A  man  so  lost  to  shame,  so  foul  with  greed? 

Or  why,  from  some  five-score  of  trusted  men, 
Choose  him  as  one  apostle  among  twelve  ? 
Or  why,  if  he  were  known  to  be  so  vile, 
(And  who  can  hide  his  baseness  at  all  times  ?) 
Keep  him  in  close  communion  to  the  last  ? 
Naught  in  his  previous  life,  or  acts,  or  words, 
Shows  this  consummate  villain  that,  full-grown, 
Leaps  all  at  once  to  such  a  height  of  crime. 

Again,  how  comes  it  that  this  wretch,  whose  heart 

Is  cased  to  shame,  flings  back  the  paltry  bribe? 

And,  when  he  knows  his  master  is  condemned, 

Rushes  in  horror  out  to  seek  his  death  ? 

Whose  fingers  pointed  at  him  in  the  crowd? 

Did  all  men  flee  his  presence  till  he  found 

Life  too  intolerable  ?     Nay ;  not  so  ! 

Death  came  too  close  upon  the  heels  of  crime. 

He  had  but  done  what  all  his  tribe  deemed  just : 

All  the  great  mass  —  I  mean  the  upper  class  — 

The  Rabbis,  all  the  Pharisees  and  Priests  — 

Ay,  and  the  lower  mob  as  well  who  cried, 

"  Give  us  Barabbas  !  Christus  to  the  cross  ! "  — 

These  men  were  all  of  them  on  Judas'  side, 

And  Judas  had  done  naught  against  the  law. 

Were  he  this  villain,  he  had  but  to  say, 

"  I  followed  Christus  till  I  found  at  last 

He  aimed  at  power  to  overthrow  the  State. 

I  did  the  duty  of  an  honest  man. 

I  traitor  !  —  You  are  traitors  who  reprove." 

Besides,  such  villains  scorn  the  world's  reproof. 


114  EVIDENCE 

Or  he  might  say  —  "You"  call  this  act  a  crime? 

What  crime  was  it  to  say,  '  I  know  this  man7? 

I  said  no  ill  of  him.     If  crime  there  be, 

'T  was  yours  who  doomed  him  unto  death,  not  mine." 

A  villain  was  he  ?     So  Bar  abbas  was  ! 
But  did  Barabbas  go  and  hang  himself, 
Weary  of  life  —  the  murderer  and  thief  ? 
This  coarse  and  vulgar  way  will  never  do. 
Grant  him  a  villain,  all  his  acts  must  be 
Acts  of  a  villain  ;  if  you  once  admit 
Remorse  so  bitter  that  it  leads  to  death 
And  death  so  instant  on  the  heels  of  crime, 
You  grant  a  spirit  sensitive  to  shame, 
So  sensitive  that  life  can  yield  no  joys 
To  counterbalance  one  bad  act ;  —  but  then 
A  nature  such  as  this,  though  led  astray, 
When  greatly  tempted,  is  no  thorough  wretch. 
Was  the  temptation  great  ?     Could  such  a  bribe 
Tempt  such  a  nature  to  a  crime  like  this  ? 
I  say,  to  me  it  simply  seems  absurd. 

Peter  at  least  was  not  so  sensitive. 
He  cursed  and  swore,  denying  that  he  knew 
Who  the  man  Christus  was ;  but  after  all 
He  only  wept  —  he  never  hanged  himself. 

The  weakness  of  this  test.  When  the  objection  is  raised 
to  testimony  that  it  is  contrary  to  ordinary  human  experi- 
ence, clearly  the  value  of  the  objection  depends  upon  how 
nearly  complete  is  the  knowledge  of  experience  upon  which 
the  objection  is  founded.  Complete  knowledge  alone  can 
make  the  test  really  final,  and  such  complete  familiarity 
with  all  human  experience  is  extremely  rare.  Further 
study,  or  new  discoveries,  may  suddenly  turn  what  was 
extraordinary  into  mere  ordinary  experience.  When  Paul 


TESTIMONY  SHOULD  BE   CONSISTENT  115 

du  Chaillu  wrote  of  the  pygmies  in  Africa,  and  told  of 
other  marvels  seen  in  the  wilds,  many  men  smiled,  called 
his  books  entertaining  stories,  and  refused  to  give  them 
more  than  a  partial  credence.  That  was  because  what  he 
said  seemed  to  be  inconsistent  with  ordinary  experience. 
To-day,  however,  the  discoveries  of  Stanley  and  of  later 
explorers  have  vindicated  M.  du  Chaillu.  Evidently,  then, 
the  safe  attitude  for  a  student  to  take  in  regard  to  evidence 
that  seems  contrary  to  human  experience  is  to  regard  jt 
himself,  and  to  insist  that  his  opponent  regard  it,  as  untrust- 
worthy until  further  evidence  shows  that  it  is  not  really  at 
variance  with  the  most  reliable  human  experience.  This 
test,  then,  when  applicable  to  evidence,  shows  a  probability 
rather  than  a  certainty  that  the  evidence  is  incorrect  as  a 
whole,  the  strength  of  the  probability  depending  on  the 
amount  of  knowledge  which  the  student  has  of  the  ques- 
tion in  dispute. 

Testimony  should  be  consistent  with  the  other  known  facts 
of  the  case.  AYlien,  however,  testimony  given  is  not  con- 
sistent with  the  facts  already  known  concerning  the  case, 
it  at  once  becomes  suspicious.  For  instance,  in  the  follow- 
ing case,  the  theory  of  Pasteur  could  hardly  stand  in  the 
face  of  what  seemed  established  truths. 

When  Pasteur  was  investigating  the  causes  of  splenic  fever 
he  adopted,  very  early  in  the  inquiry,  the  theory  of  Dr.  Davaine, 
that  the  disease  was  due  to  the  presence  of  a  certain  parasite 
in  the  blood,  and  that  consequently  the  same  disease,  showing 
the  presence  of  the  same  parasite,  could  be  communicated  to 
other  animals  by  inoculation.  On  the  other  side,  two  pro- 
fessors to  whom  the  theory  did  not  commend  itself  brought  for- 
ward, as  a  triumphant  refutation  of  it,  what  seemed  at  first  a 
plainly  contradictory  fact.  They  had  inoculated  some  rabbits 
with  the  blood  of  an  animal  which  had  died  of  splenic  fever, 


116  EVIDENCE 

and  though  the  rabbits  had  died  very  rapidly  no  trace  of  the 
expected  parasite  had  been  found  in  them  either  before  or 
after  their  death.  Moreover,  their  blood  had  been  used  to 
inoculate  other  rabbits,  and  these  too  had  died  in  the  same 
rapid  manner,  but  with  the  same  disregard  of  what  the  theory 
further  required.  Davaine  at  once  disputed  the  fact.  That 
is  to  say,  he  insisted  that  the  two  professors  must  have  used 
blood  which  was  not  properly  infected  with  splenic  fever,  but 
with  some  other  disease.  The  professors,  however,  were  equally 
certain  of  their  facts ;  they  had  got  their  materials  from  the 
best  available  source,  namely,  from  the  director  of  an  estab- 
lishment where  numerous  animals  which  had  died  of  splenic 
fever  were  constantly  brought.  But  in  order  to  convince  the 
stubborn  theorist  they  tried  the  experiment  again,  this  time 
obtaining  their  materials  from  the  most  experienced  veterinary 
surgeon  in  the  neighborhood.  Exactly  the  same  result  fol- 
lowed, and  the  facts  certainly  here  appeared  to  be  too  strong 
for  the  theory.1 

That  is,  the  theory  here  was  not  consistent  with  the 
known  facts  in  the  case. 

A  danger  of  this  test.  Of  course  the  so-called  "  facts  " 
which  are  contradicted  must  be  very  carefully  examined 
and  shown  not  to  be  open  themselves  to  any  possible  doubt, 
before  a  writer  decides  against  the  new  opposing  evidence 
as  inadmissible.  Because  a  statement  contradicts  generally 
accepted  ideas  it  is  not,  as  has  been  shown,  necessarily  false. 
In  the  case  of  Davaine  just  cited  later  investigation  proved 
that  the  so-called  "  facts  "  of  the  professors  were  not  facts 
at  all. 

It  was  some  years  later  when  the  real  weakness  of  the 
facts  themselves  came  to  light.  Davaine's  theory  had  mean- 
while been  enlarged  and  improved  by  the  discovery  that  if 

1  The  Process  of  Argument.    Sidgwick.    pp.  95-96.    A.  &  C.  Black.    1893. 


TESTIMONY  SHOULD  BE  CONSISTENT  117 

the  blood  used  for  inoculation  has  already  begun  to  putrefy, 
the  animals  inoculated  will  die  by  a  form  of  blood-poisoning, 
quicker  in  its  operation  than  splenic  fever,  and  too  quick  to 
allow  the  true  splenic  fever  parasites  time  to  multiply.  This 
suggested  a  new  inquiry  into  the  professors'  experiments,  and 
it  was  found  that  the  blood  used  by  them,  although  certainly 
taken  from  cases  of  splenic  fever,  had  not  been  sufficiently 
fresh.  So  that  the  fact  on  which  they  relied  as  contradicting 
the  theory  turned  out  to  be  wrongly  —  i.e.y  incompletely  — 
described.  Through  merely  overlooking  the  detail  that  the 
animals  whose  blood  they  used  had  been  dead  some  twenty- 
four  hours,  their  description  of  it  as  "splenic  fever  blood" 
became  essentially  false.1 

Testimony  should  be  consistent  with  itself.  The  next  test 
of  evidencer^-^wlietherTt  iTsel^COnsistent  —  is  more  final. 
Certainly  the  following  contradictory  sentences  taken  from 
a  schoolbook  would  hardly  be  accepted  as  conclusive  evi- 
dence in  a  question  on  the  date  of  the  invention  of  the 
magnetic  telegraph. 

Question  159 :  What  of  Professor  Morse's  invention  ? 
Answer:  He  invented  the  magnetic  telegraph,  which  was 
the  grandest  event  during  Folk's  administration. 

Question  160 :  What  was  the  first  news  sent  on  the  wire  ? 
Answer :  The  announcement  of  Folk's  nomination. 

It  is  by  pointing  out  contradictions  that  Macaulay,  in  his 
stinging  review  of  Croker's  edition  of  BosweWs  Johnson 
chiefly  convicts  Croker  of  un  trustworthiness  as  an  editor. 

Mr.  Croker  tells  us  in  a  note  that  Derrick,  who  was  master 
of  the  ceremonies  at  Bath,  died  very  poor  in  1760.  We  read 
on ;  and,  a  few  pages  later,  we  find  Dr.  Johnson  and  Boswell 
talking  of  this  same  Derrick  as  still  living  and  reigning,  as 

i  Idem.     See  pp.  13  and  69.     p.  97.    A.  &  C.  Black.    1893, 


118  EVIDENCE 

having  retrieved  his  character,  as  possessing  so  much  power 
over  his  subjects  at  Bath  that  his  opposition  might  be  fatal  to 
Sheridan's  lectures  on  oratory.  And  all  this  in  1763.  The 
fact  is,  that  Derrick  died  in  1769. 

In  one  note  we  read  that  Sir  Herbert  Croft,  the  author  of 
that  pompous  and  foolish  account  of  Young  which  appears 
among  the  "  Lives  of  the  Poets,"  died  in  1805.  Another  note 
in  the  same  volume  states  that  this  same  Sir  Herbert  Croft 
died  at  Paris,  after  residing  abroad  for  fifteen  years,  on  the 
27th  of  April,  1816.1 

A  more  thoroughgoing  use  of  this  test  is  seen  in  the 
following  recent  political  argument. 

Mr.  Henry  T.  Oxnard,  chief  of  the  beet  sugar  lobby  at 
Washington,  and  Henry  T.  Oxnard,  promoter  of  beet  sugar 
companies,  appear  to  be  separate  and  distinct  persons.  At 
least  they  hold  opposite  views  as  to  the  stability  and  security 
of  the  beet  sugar  industry,  and  its  independence  of  tariffs. 

Sunday  morning's  papers  contained  a  most  positive  and 
unequivocal  statement  from  Mr.  Oxnard  of  the  beet  sugar 
lobby  that  the  removal  of  the  tariff  on  Cuban  cane  sugar 
would  mean  the  absolute  ruin  of  the  American  sugar  industry 
—  would,  in  fact,  wipe  it  out  completely.  "Under  existing 
conditions,"  he  said,  "  we  cannot  compete  with  the  Cubans.  If 
conditions  as  to  cost  of  machinery  and  labor  were  equal,  we 
might  be  willing  to  take  our  chances  with  them  ;  but  as  things 
are  now,  this  is  impossible."  He  also  asserted  boldly  thati 
the  beet  sugar  producers  are  making  only  6  per  cent,  on  their 
investment. 

In  1899,  Mr.  Oxnard,  together  with  his  partner,  W.  Bayard 
Cutting,  signed  an  extended  letter,  evidently  addressed  to> 
prospective  investors,  in  which  it  was  clearly  established  that 
neither  the  annexation  of  Cuba,  nor  a  return  to  absolute  free 

1  Essays  on  Croker's  BosweWs  Life  of  Johnson.  Macaulay.  pp.  333, 
334.  H.  Holt  &  Co.  1893. 


TESTIMONY  SHOULD  BE   CONSISTENT  119 

trade  in  sugar,  could  check  the  growth  or  destroy  the  profits 
of  the  beet  industry.  In  this  letter  the  Cuban  question  was 
especially  and  specifically  considered.  Mr.  Oxnard's  state- 
ment at  that  time  was : 

"  There  is,  however,  no  fear  that,  even  under  annexation  to 
the  United  States,  Cuban  production  can,  in  our  day,  expand 
to  the  point  where  the  United  States  would  become  exporters 
of  sugar  instead  of  importers,  and  hence  that  protection  would 
no  longer  protect." 

He  also  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  sugar  produc- 
tion of  the  world  consists  of  3,000,000  tons  of  cane  sugar  from 
the  tropics,  and  5,000,000  tons  of  beet  sugar  from  Europe. 
Consequently,  the  security  of  any  given  sugar  proposition 
depends  on  its  ability  to  hold  its  own  with  the  European 
product.  "  The  sugar  industry,'7  he  declared,  "  is,  after  all, 
merely  an  agricultural  one.  We  can  undersell  Europe  in  the 
production  of  all  other  crops,  and  sugar  is  no  exception." 

But  the  most  weighty  proposition  advanced  in  the  letter 
was  that  showing  what  the  beet  sugar  industry  could  do  under 
free  trade.  For  demonstration  of  this  Mr.  Oxnard  and  his 
partner  appealed  to  the  statistics  of  the  sugar  trade  under  the 
McKinley  bill,  when  raw  sugars  were  admitted  free.  The 
lowest  average  price  for  sugar  in  any  one  of  the  three  years 
under  that  law  was  4  cents  a  pound.  This  was  a  reduction 
of  2.17  cents  a  pound  from  the  price  prevailing  the  year  before 
the  law  took  effect ;  but  it  didn't  dismay  Promoter  Oxnard  a 
little  bit.  Indeed,  he  went  on  to  show  how,  even  at  the  free 
trade  price,  the  beet  men  could  prosper  amazingly.  His  expe- 
rience showed  that,  conservatively  estimated,  beets  would  yield 
250  pounds  of  granulated  sugar  per  ton.  This,  at  4  cents  per 
pound,  meant  $10  per  ton  for  each  ton  of  beets  worked.  The 
cost  of  the  beets  was  $4  per  ton ;  the  cost  of  working  beets 
into  sugar,  $3  per  ton.  This  would  leave  a  net  profit  of  $3 
per  ton.  His  factories  were  then  capable  of  handling  350,000 
tons  per  annum.  This  meant  a  profit  of  $1,050,000  per  year. 
By  way  of  making  his  case  stronger,  he  pointed  out  that, 


120  EVIDENCE 

should  sugar  go  as  low  as  3  cents  per  pound  —  1  cent  lower 
than  the  free  trade  price  —  the  profit  would  still  be  $780,000. 

Unless  Mr.  Oxnard,  when  making  prospectuses,  was  a  most 
studied  and  statistical  liar,  it  is  absolutely  clear  that  his  appre- 
hension of  ruin  for  the  domestic  sugar  industry,  if  Cuba  is 
granted  some  chance  for  her  life,  is  either  simulated  or  wholly 
unnecessary.  Perhaps,  by  reading  his  letter  of  two  years  ago, 
he  might  reassure  himself,  and  it  is  entirely  possible  that  by 
reading  that  same  letter  the  sugar  beet  farmers  and  the  beet 
sugar  manufacturers  of  Michigan  may  be  able  to  estimate 
more  accurately  the  value  of  what  Mr.  Oxnard  and  his  col- 
leagues are  now  attempting  to  make  them  believe, 

Certainly,  if  the  industry  was  so  secure  from  any  form  of 
attack  as  Mr.  Oxnard  claimed  in  '99,  it  must  be  much  more 
so  now,  since  it  is  better  established,  more  perfectly  developed 
and  in  much  stronger  position.1 

Summary  of  the  first  test.  When,  then,  one  is  asked  to 
accept  testimony  that  states  something  contrary  to  ordinary 
experience,  or  that  contradicts  other  known  facts  in  the 
case,  or  contradicts  itself,  one  has  a  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  it  in  proof  of  the  assertion  it  is  intended  to  sup- 
port. Testimony  of  the  third  kind  should  be  carefully 
excluded,  and  the  other  two  kinds  as  well,  unless  the 
witness  is  prepared  to  show  that  ordinary  experience  in 
regard  to  his  case  has  not  been  heretofore  properly  reported, 
or  that  the  "  facts  "  contradicted  are  not  really  facts  at  all. 

II.   TESTING  THE  CONDITIONS  UNDER  WHICH  THE 
STATEMENTS  WERE  MADE 

An  objection  to  throwing  out  self-contradictory  testi- 
mony might  be  raised  on  the  ground  that  the  contradiction 
may  not  come  from  ignorance  but  from  the  timidity  or  the 
1  Detroit  Evening  News,  Dec.  17,  1901. 


TESTIMONY  GIVEN  UNDER  COMPULSION        121 

nervousness  of  the  witness.  Clearly,  however,  the  testi- 
mony is  in  itself  of  no  value  until  the  contradiction  is 
cleared  away.  If  a  student  tries  to  examine  how  the  con- 
tradiction arose,  he  passes  to  a  second  test  of  evidence  — 
the  conditions  under  which  the  testimony  was  given. 

Does  the  witness  testify  unwillingly?  It  is  under  this 
test  that  a  writer  should  consider  whether  the  witness 
seems  ready  or  reluctant  to  give  his  testimony. 

A  man  stands  at  the  bar  on  a  charge  of  embezzlement.  If 
he  hunts  for  and  produces  all  his  books,  bills,  and  receipts, 
and  is  ready  to  go  into  the  state  of  his  accounts  and  all  his 
money  transactions,  then  the  jury  who  deliver  a  verdict  of 
"  not  proven  "  may  well  in  the  eyes  of  candid  observers  show 
rather  the  strength  of  their  own  prejudices  than  the  guilt  of 
the  prisoner.  But  if  the  accused  refuse  to  produce  his  account 
books  or  ledgers,  or  at  the  moment  he  finds  himself  suspected, 
destroys  every  scrap  of  paper  which,  were  he  innocent,  might 
establish  his  innocence,  but  if  he  were  not  innocent,  might 
demonstrate  his  guilt,  then  a  verdict  of  "  not  proven  "  will  not 
clear  his  character.  Every  one  will  feel  that  that  conduct 
which  has  saved  the  accused  from  conviction  has  also  left  him 
subject  to  irremovable  suspicion  of  guilt.1 

Was  the  testimony  given  under  compulsion  ?  Plainly  testi- 
mony given  under  compulsion,  whether  physical  or  moral, 
is  suspicious.  It  is  difficult  to  write  an  accurate  account 
of  the  Salem  witchcraft  and  of  Spain  in  the  time  of 
Philip  II  because  in  both  cases  torture  forced  from  ago- 
nized men  and  women  much  of  the  evidence  now  extant. 
Surely  testimony  given  under  such  compulsion  must  be 
handled  very  cautiously.  Yet  students  are  careless  in  the 
matter,  if  the  evidence  thus  extracted  favors  their  side  of 

i  The  Verdict     A.  V.  Dicey,     p.  19.     Cassell  &  Co.     1890. 


122 


EVIDENCE 


a  case.  For  instance,  the  question  "  Was  Elizabeth  justi- 
fied in  beheading  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots?"  involves  con- 
sideration of  the  evidence  forced  from  Mary's  secretaries 
by  torture.  They  confessed  only  to  recant  when  free. 
Assigning  a  value  to  their  testimony  on  the  rack  becomes, 
then,  a  very  delicate  matter.  It  cannot  be  used  against 
Mary  with  any  force  unless  other  evidence  which  has  been 
carefully  tested  points  to  the  same  conclusion. 

A  schoolboy  professing  ignorance  of  a  prank  of  his 
schoolmates  which  the  teachers  are  investigating  may  be 
so  influenced  by  the  fear  that  he  will  be  regarded  as  a  tell- 
tale that  his  testimony  must  be  discredited  on  the  ground 
that  he  is  speaking  under  moral  compulsion.  The  law 
recognizes  the  danger  of  this  compulsion  in  its  provision 
that  a  wife  is  not  compelled  to  testify  against  her  husband. 
Obviously  her  testimony  if  forced  would  be  given  under 
strong  moral  compulsion  to  color  her  evidence  in  her  hus- 
band's favor. 

Summary  of  the  second  test.  Whenever,  then,  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  the  testimony  is  given  suggest 
that  the  witness  did  not  speak  the  truth,  either  because 
he  testified  unwillingly  or  because  there  was  evident 
physical  or  moral  compulsion,  the  testimony  becomes  sub- 
ject to  more  or  less  suspicion  and  may  at  times  be  entirely 
discredited. 


III.   EXAMINING  THE  WITNESS  HIMSELF 

A  third  test  is  to  examine,  not  the  statement  or  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  is  made,  but  the  witness  him- 
self, to  see  if  anything  about  the  man  affects  his  power  or 
his  will  to  speak  the  truth. 


PREJUDICED  TESTIMONY  123 

Is  the  testimony  prejudiced?  Does  it  show  personal  inter- 
est? A  student  should,  first  of  all,  be  on  his  guard  against 
prejudices  or  personal  interest,  that  may  affect  the  testi- 
mony. For  example,  with  most  men  the  love  of  their  own 
national  customs  and  habits  strongly  colors  their  judgments 
of  foreign  lands.  If,  too,  a  writer  is  evidently  wedded  to 
the  theory  that  he  is  presenting,  or  has  important  interests 
at  stake  —  his  reputation  as  scientist,  lawyer,  or  inventor, 
—  or  is  closely  connected  with  the  person  under  trial, 
his  testimony  should  be  well  scrutinized.  The  ardent  sup- 
porter of  the  belief  that  Bacon  wrote  Shakespeare's  plays, 
a  mill-owner  pleading  for  a  high  tariff,  a  man  defending 
a  brother  accused  of  robbery,  may  all  be  prejudiced  wit- 
nesses and  must  therefore  be  regarded  with  suspicion. 
Indeed,  the  Argument  from  Authority  is  most  often  ques- 
tioned from  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  personal  interest 
produces  a  strong  bias  one  way  or  the  other,  as  the  grow- 
ing hesitancy  to  accept  that  form  of  the  Argument  from 
Authority  known  as  expert  testimony  illustrates.  The  fol- 
lowing shows  why  all  the  evidence  of  an  expert,  most  of  all 
his  unsupported  assertions,  must  be  carefully  scrutinized. 

Lord  Campbell  says  :  "  Skilled  witnesses  come  with  such  a 
bias  on  their  minds  to  support  the  cause  in  which  they  are 
embarked,  that  hardly  any  weight  should  be  given  to  their 
evidence."  These  are  strong  words,  but  what  does  Lord 
Campbell  mean?  That  an  eminent  scientist  would  go  upon 
the  witness-stand,  and  perjure  himself  merely  because  he  has 
been  engaged  to  substantiate  a  given  proposition  ?  Not  at 
all.  .  .  .  But  the  expert  does  not  give  us  an  unbiased  opinion. 
The  reason  is  plain.  .  .  .  His  opinion  is  sought  in  advance. 
If  favorable  he  is  engaged.  When  engaged  he  becomes  a 
hired  advocate,  as  much  as  the  lawyer.  Moreover,  unlike  the 
witness  of  facts,  his  testimony  is  tinged  by  a  personal  interest. 


124  EVIDENCE 

He  knows  that  celebrated  experts  will  oppose  his  views.  His 
reputation  is  on  trial,  as  it  were.  If  the  verdict  is  for  his 
side,  it  is  a  sort  of  juridical  upholding  of  his  position.  He 
is  therefore  arrayed  against  his  antagonists,  as  much  as  the 
lawyers  of  the  opposing  sides.  In  short,  having  once  expressed 
an  opinion,  he  will  go  to  any  extreme  almost,  to  prove  that 
he  is  right.  The  questions  asked  by  the  counsel  for  his  side, 
the  majority  of  which  he  prepares  or  dictates  himself,  are 
glibly  and  positively  answered.  But  when  the  cross-examina- 
tion begins,  what  do  we  see  ?  An  interesting  spectacle  from 
a  psychological  standpoint.  We  see  a  man,  honest  in  his 
intentions,  standing  between  two  almost  equal  forces ;  the 
love  of  himself  and  of  his  own  opinions,  on  the  one  side,  and 
upon  the  other  the  love  of  scientific  truth  which  is  inherent 
in  all  truly  professional  men.  When  a  question  is  asked,  to 
which  he  can  reply  without  injury  to  his  pronounced  opinion, 
how  eagerly  he  answers.  But  when  a  query  is  propounded 
which  his  knowledge  shows  him  in  a  moment,  indicates  a 
reply  which  his  quick  intelligence  sees  will  be  against  his 
side,  what  does  he  do  ?  We  find  that  he  fences  with  the 
question.  As  anxious  not  to  state  what  he  knows  to  be  false, 
as  he  is  not  to  injure  his  side  of  the  case,  he  parries.  He  tells 
you  in  hesitating  tones,  "  It  may  be  so,  in  rare  cases,"  "  Other 
men  have  seen  and  reported  such  circumstances,  but  I  have 
not  met  them,"  "It  might  be  possible  under  extraordinary 
circumstances,  but  not  in  this  case,"  and  so  on,  and  so  on, 
reluctant  to  express  himself  so  that  he  may  be  cited  afterwards.1 

Is  the  witness  intellectually  strong?  Another  test  under 
this  division  is  to  examine  the  intellectual  capacity  of  the 
witness.  At  times  the  evidence  of  a  writer  or  thinker  must 
be  thrown  out  because  of  his  mental  dullness.  Though  he 
may  state  a  desired  conclusion,  examination  may  show  that 
he  has  stupidly  misrepresented  the  experience  on  which  it 

1  A  Modern  Wizard.     R.  Ottolengui.     pp.  167-160. 


IS  THE  WITNESS  INTELLECTUALLY  STRONG?    125 

is  based.  A  careless  writer  of  a  critical  article  unfavorable 
to  Sir  William  Jones  might  use  Croker's  words  in  the  fol- 
lowing, but  any  cautious  reader  must  see  that  his  evidence 
is  valueless  because  of  his  stupidity. 

All  our  readers  have  doubtless  seen  the  two  distichs  of  Sir 
William  Jones,  respecting  the  division  of  time  of  a  lawyer. 
One  of  the  distichs  is  translated  from  some  old  Latin  lines ; 
the  other  is  original.  •  The  former  runs  thus : 

"  Six  hours  to  sleep,  to  law's  grave  study  six, 
Four  spend  in  prayer,  the  rest  on  nature  fix." 

"  Bather,"  says  Sir  William  Jones, 

"  Six  hours  to  law,  to  soothing  slumbers  seven, 
Ten  to  the  world  allot,  and  all  to  heaven." 

The  second  couplet  puzzles  Mr.  Croker  strangely.  "Sir 
William,"  says  he,  "has  shortened  his  day  to  twenty-three 
hours,  and  the  general  advice  of  ( all  to  heaven '  destroys  the 
peculiar  appropriation  of  a  certain  period  to  religious  exer- 
cises." Now,  we  did  not  think  that  it  was  in  human  dulness 
to  miss  the  meaning  of  the  lines  so  completely.  Sir  William 
distributes  twenty-three  hours  among  various  employments. 
One  hour  is  thus  left  for  devotion.  The  reader  expects  that 
the  verse  will  end  with  "and  one  to  heaven."  The  whole 
point  of  the  lines  consists  in  the  unexpected  substitution  of 
"  all "  for  "  one."  The  conceit  is  wretched  enough  ;  but  it  is 
perfectly  intelligible,  and  never,  we  will  venture  to  say,  per- 
plexed man,  woman,  or  child  before.1 

Under  this  subdivision  come  the  witnesses  who  mis- 
understand what  is  self-evident,  as  in  the  case  just  cited ; 
who  cannot  report  intelligently ;  and  who  cannot  remember 
correctly.  The  stupidity  in  the  first  and  the  second  cases 
will  be  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  evidence ;  in  the  third, 

on  Croker's  BosweWs  Johnson,     p.  343.     H.  Holt  &  Co.     1893. 


126  EVIDENCE 

past  reputation  for  a  bad  memory,  or  conflict  between  the 
evidence  arid  that  of  good  witnesses  who  agree  in  their 
story,  will  show  the  faulty  memory  of  the  witness. 

Ar$  the  physical  powers  of  the  witness  sound  ?  Not  only 
may  mental  dullness  make  testimony  untrustworthy,  but 
physical  weakness  may  have  a  like  effect. 

In  every  statement  of  a  witness  is  involved  the  assertion 
that  the  sense  through  which  his  information  was  .derived 
correctly  represented  to  him  the  object  he  describes,  and  in 
the  truthfulness  or  falsity  of  this  assertion  is  the  ultimate 
and  crucial  test  of  his  reliability.  This  is  a  field  of  inquiry 
which  the  vigilant  cross-examiner  will  never  neglect  to  explore. 
In  ages  past  it  may,  perhaps,  have  safely  been  assumed  that, 
as  a  rule,  the  organs  of  sensation  were  in  sound  condition,  but 
in  these  modern  days  no  such  presumption  can  be  entertained. 
Whatever  be  the  cause,  the  proportion  of  mankind  in  civilized 
communities  who  are  known  to  suffer  from  the  failure  of  one 
or  more  of  the  great  organs  to  perform  their  proper  functions 
seems  to  be  increasing;  and  every  witness  who  professes  to 
have  seen  or  heard,  or  to  otherwise  have  had  a  physical  appre- 
hension of  an  object,  may  well  be  doubted  until  the  soundness 
of  the  sense  employed  has  been  established.  By  a  few  prac- 
tical experiments  from  materials  at  hand  these  faculties  of 
the  witness  may  be  tested  so  far  as  their  correctness  forms  the 
basis  of  his  evidence,  and  if  they  fail  to  undergo  the  test  the 
evidence  derived  from  them  must  fall.1 

This  is  the  test  that  must  be  kept  constantly  in  mind 
by  those  who  investigate  such  stories  as  those  which  are 
constantly  reported  to  The  Society  for  Psychical  Research. 
Interesting  ghost  stories  have  been  found,  again  and  again, 
to  rest  on  nothing  except  weakness  of  sight,  or  hearing, 
or  touch.  Inquiries  into  railroad  accidents  have  dragged, 

1  Forensic  Oratory.     Robinson.     §  229. 


MORAL  CHARACTER  OF   THE  WITNESS          127 

along  without  placing  the  responsibility,  until  the  possi- 
bility that  the  switch  tender  or  the  engineer,  whose  testi- 
mony seemed  open  to  no  one  of  the  tests  already  explained, 
might  be  color-blind  suggested  itself  to  some  one.  A  little 
experimentation  soon  showed  that  the  disaster  was  the 
fault  of  a  color-blind  engineer  or  switchman. 

What  is  the  moral  character  of  the  witness  ?  Is  he  natu- 
rally truthful?  Another  test  under  this  subdivision  is 
to  examine  the  moral  uprightness  of  the  witness.  Is  he 
naturally  veracious  ?  Of  unveracious  witnesses  "  there  are 
three  classes :  the  innocent  liar,  whose  imaginations  are  so 
intimately  mingled  with  his  memories  that  he  does  not 
distinguish  between  the  facts  and  fancies  which  occupy 
his  mind,  but  believes  and  utters  both  alike  as  true ;  the 
careless  liar,  whose  love  of  the  pathetic  or  marvelous,  or 
whose  desire  to  attract  attention  to  himself,  overcomes  his 
weak  allegiance  to  the  truth,  and  leads  him  to  weave  facts 
and  falsehoods  together  in  his  common  conversation,  to 
round  out  his  narratives  by  the  insertion  of  invented  inci- 
dents, to  give  dramatic  completeness  to  events  by  supply- 
ing with  fiction  whatever  may  be  wanting  in  the  circum- 
stance itself ;  the  wilful  liar,  who  for  some  definite  purpose 
deliberately  asserts  what  he  knows  to  be  untrue." l 

Evidently  when  objection  is  raised  to  testimony,  not 
because  there  is  anything  wrong  with  the  evidence  itself, 
or  with  the  conditions  under  which  it  is  given,  but  solely 
on  the  ground  that  the  witness  belongs  to  one  of  the  classes 
of  liars  just  named,  at  best  only  strong  doubt  is  thrown  on 
the  testimony  in  question.  A  student  can  say :  "  It  seems 
very  probable  that  this  evidence's  untrustworthy,"  not 
"It  cannot  be  trusted."  Any  liar  sometimes  tells  the 

i  Idem.     §  240. 


128  EVIDENCE 

truth,  and  the  case  in  point  may  be  one  of  these  rare 
occasions.  Therefore  if  the  only  ground  of  objection  is 
the  usual  unveracity  of  the  witness,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  apply  some  of  the  other  tests. 

The  innocent,  the  imaginative  liar  is  generally  endowed 
with  no  remarkable  acuteness,  and,  being  honest  in  his  inten- 
tions, readily  follows  wherever  a  kindly  questioner  may  wish 
to  lead  him.  Most  of  the  facts  concerning  which  he  testifies 
made,  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence,  no  powerful  impression 
on  his  mind,  and  have  not  since  been  verified  by  personal 
examination  or  external  authority.  When  he  was  called  upon 
to  state  them,  at  the  instance  of  the  adverse  party,  the  natural 
desire  to  serve  a  friend  stimulated  his  imagination  as  well  as 
his  memory,  and  the  story  he  related  was  the  net  result  of 
fancy  and  recollection.  The  cross-examiner  may  take  advan- 
tage of  the  same  docility  in  order  to  exhibit  his  liability  to 
self-deception.  If  circumstances  which  they  know  did  not 
occur,  but  which  are  in  keeping  with  the  other  parts  of  the 
transaction  as  narrated  by  him,  are  now  suggested  to  him,  his 
imagination  is  very  likely  to  insert  them  into  the  picture  which 
his  memory  preserves,  and  he  will  express  his  certainty  of 
their  existence  with  as  much  positiveness  as  that  of  any  other 
matter  to  which  he  has  testified.  This  process  may  be  indefi- 
nitely repeated,  until  the  jury  see  that  he  is  willing  to  adopt 
and  swear  to  any  details  which  are  not  manifestly  improb- 
able, or  until  his  contradiction  of  other  witnesses,  or  of  former 
portions  of  his  own  evidence,  destroys  their  faith  in  his  intel- 
ligence or  honesty.  An  alternative,  or  sometimes  an  addi- 
tional, mode  of  cross-examining  this  witness  is  to  compel  him 
to  narrate  the  transaction  piecemeal,  beginning  in  the  middle 
of  its  history  and  skipping  from  one  portion  to  another,  revers- 
ing or  confusing  its  chronological  order.  Variations  and  omis- 
sions will  probably  resulf,  which,  if  not  significant  enough  to 
discredit  the  witness,  can  be  so  easily  magnified  by  the  sug- 
gestions of  the  cross-examiner  as  to  make  it  evident  to  all 


SUMMARY  129 

beholders  that  the  witness  has  no  actual  knowledge  or  convic- 
tions of  his  own,  but  simply  reflects  impressions  created  by  his 
fancy  from  within,  or  by  the  promptings  of  his  questioner 
from  without.  The  exposure  of  the  careless  liar  is  a  work 
of  little  difficulty.  The  cross-examiner  needs  but  to  apply 
the  goad,  and  give  him  rein.  The  same  qualities  which  mis- 
lead him  in  his  statements  in  regard  to  one  event  operate  on 
all  the  occurrences  of  life,  and  in  his  mouth  "  a  little  one  " 
always  becomes  "  a  thousand,"  and  "  two  roistering  youths  " 
develop  into  "  eleven  men  in  buckram  "  and  "  three  in  Kendall 
green."  l  Let  fitting  incidents,  whose  details  are  already  accu- 
rately known,  be  but  presented  to  him  for  description,  and  his 
palpable  additions  and  exaggerations  will  complete  his  ruin.2 

Evidently  the  testimony  of  these  two  kinds  of  liars  may, 
by  skillful  treatment,  be  brought  under  the  decidedly  final 
test  of  self-contradiction. 

In  handling  the  evidence  of  a  man  considered  to  be  a 
willful  liar  it  is  best  to  remember  that  he  lies  from  a  definite 
motive.  The  point  is,  then,  to  apply  the  test  of  personal 
prejudice  and  personal  interest  to  find  out  what  that  motive 
is.  If  the  evidence  cannot  be  discredited  by  that  test,  the 
witness  must  be  trapped  by  some  other  of  the  tests  already 
given.3 

Summary.  .Thus  far  the  following  tests  have  been  con- 
sidered :  (1)  Three  as  to  the  statement  itself  :  (a)  it  must 
not  contradict  well-established  human  experience,  or  (b)  the 
other  well-established  facts  in  the  case/£?)  it  must  not  con- 
tradict itself.  /2V  Two  as  to  the  conditions  under  which 


1  Professor  Robinson  here  refers  to  FalstafP  s  story  of  the  robbers  who 
set  upon  him.    It  admirably  illustrates  the  work  of  the  careless  liar.    King 
Henry  IV,  Part  I,  Act  II,  Sc.  4. 

2  Forensic  Oratory.     Robinson.     §§  240,  241. 

8  For  an  illustration  of  Lincoln's  method  of  trapping  a  willful  liar 
eee  p.  175. 


130  EVIDENCE 

the  testimony  is  given:  (a)  the  witness  should  not  give 
evidence  unwillingly,  (b)  he  should  not  testify  under 
compulsion.  (S^JJcwras  to  the  witness:  (a)  he  must  be 
free  from  prejudice  or  personal  interest,  (b)  he  must  be 
intelligent,  (c)  his  senses  must  be  reliable,  (d)  he  himself 
must  stand  in  the  community  as  an  honest  thinker  and 
liver,  who  shuns  the  glosses  of  imagination. 


Even  as  the  kinds  of  evidence  just  considered  are 
suspicious  or  untrustworthy,  three  other  kinds  from  their 
very  nature  commend  themselves  to  a  reader  or  hearer. 
These  are:  (1)  Undesigned  Testimony, — what  a  writer 
or  speaker  gives  inadvertently  or  incidentally,  with  no 
thought  for  its  bearing  on  the  point  in  discussion; 

(2)  Negative  Testimony,  or  the  Testimony  of  Silence,— 
"  the  failure  of  the  witness  to  mention  a  fact  so  striking 
that   he    must    have    noticed  it   had    it   occurred";    and 

(3)  Hurtful  Admissions,  —  the  admission  that  something 
which  makes  against  the  writer's   or  the  speaker's  case 
is  true.1 

Undesigned  testimony.  An  ardent  philatelist  is  trying  to 
demonstrate  to  some  friend  how  widespread  is  the  present 
interest  in  collecting  stamps,  and  how  eager  the  collectors 
are  to  gather  specimens.  He  remembers  the  following  from 
Henry  Norman's  The  Far  East,  and  quotes  it :  "  Whenever 
Macao  desires  a  lift  for  its  treasury  it  is  able  to  secure  it 
by  abandoning  one  set  of  stamps  and  issuing  another,  when 
philatelists  from  all  over  the  world  eagerly  add  it  to  their 

1  The  divisions  given  in  this  paragraph  follow  roughly  those  of  Professor 
Genung,  Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  410. 


NEGATIVE  TESTIMONY  — HURTFUL  ADMISSIONS     131 

inflated  collect! ons,-  ^£hir_consul  declares  that  he  has 
4  endless  applications  from  differelrrcoTintries^Gr  stamps  of 
this  colony.'  " l  Both  the  philatelist  and  his  friend  will 
feel  the  convincingness  of  this  testimony,  arising  from  the 
fact  that  it  was  originally  given  to  illustrate,  not  anything 
about  philately,  but  what  makeshifts  Macao  uses  to  gather 
her  revenue.  This  fact  frees  it  from  any  suspicion  of  prej- 
udice on  the  subject  under  discussion. 

Negative  testimony.  It  is  negative  testimony,  or  the  tes- 
timony of  silence,  on  which  a  critic  depends  in  the  follow- 
tog  extract  from  a  review  of  a  book  purporting  to  be  founded 
on  the  Journals,  Letters,  and  Conversations  of  the  Princess 
.Lamballe,  a  confidential  friend  of  Marie  Antoinette :  — 

What  evidence  have  we,  then,  that  we  are  here  reading  the 
ipsissima  verba  of  Marie  Antoinette's  friend  and  confidante? 
In  trying  to  answer  this  question  one  gets  but  little  assistance 
from  the  Princess's  more  important  biographers.  Two  full 
Lives  are  known  to  me  .  .  .  These  two  Lives  are,  the  one  by 
M.  de  Lescure,  published  in  1860,  and  the  second  by  M.  Bertin, 
published  in  1888,  of  which  the  second  edition,  published  in 
1894,  is  before  me.  In  neither,  that  I  can  trace,  is  there  the 
slightest  reference  to  the  Memoirs  now  in  question,  though 
M.  Bertin's  book,  more  particularly,  is  a  very  careful  piece  of 
work.  ..Mr.  Austin  Dobson,  again,  who  is  not  only  a  finished 
poet,  but  the  most  accurate  of  men,  never  mentions  them  in 
his  short  monograph.  All  this  silence  is  ominous.2 

Hurtful  admissions.    When  a  witness  gives  testimony 
that  is  hostile  to  his  interests  whatever  he  says  is  espe-~~ 
cially  significant.     Not  long  ago,  a  will  was  broken  largely 
on  account  of  one  witness,  a  clergyman,  who  testified  in 

1  The  Far  East.    Henry  Norman,    p.  188.    T.  F.  Unwin.    189& 

2  The  Academy,  July  27,  1895,  p.  66. 


132  EVIDENCE 

such  fashion  as  practically  to  establish  the  fact  that  the 
testator  was  of  unsound  mind  when  she  made  the  disputed 
will.  The  testimony  was  doubly  convincing  because  the 
clergyman  had  been  left  a  large  legacy  in  the  will  which 
the  heirs  were  trying  to  set  aside.  In  the  following  extract, 
the  evidence  as  to  the  faulty  construction  of  the  building 
commends  itself  because  it  is  an  admission  hurtful  to  the 
witness  and  subjected  him  to  a  charge  of  manslaughter. 

"  Mr.  Hart/'  he  said,  clearing  his  throat  and  looking  gravely 
at  the  witness,  "  I  understand  that  you  were  the  architect  for 
this  hotel?" 

"Yes." 

"  You  drew  the  plans  and  specifications  for  the  Glenmore  ?  " 

"  Yes,  they  were  prepared  in  my  office." 

"Were  they  the  same  that  you  see  here?  " 

The  coroner  motioned  toward  the  roll  of  plans  that  had  been 
taken  from  the  files  of  the  Building  Department. 

"  Yes,"  the  architect  answered,  readily,  merely  glancing  at 
the  plans,  "  those  were  the  plans  for  the  hotel  as  originally 
prepared  by  me." 

"Now  I  want  to  ask  you  if  the  Glenmore  Hotel  was  built 
according  to  these  plans?" 

..."  These  plans  were  very  considerably  altered."  .  .  . 

"  By  whom  ?    By  you  ?    With  your  consent,  your  approval  ?  " 

The  architect  hesitated  again  for  a  few  moments,  and  then 
answered  rapidly :  — 

"  With  my  knowledge,  certainly ;  yes,  you  may  say  with 
my  consent  ! "  .  .  . 

"  Mr.  Hart,"  the  coroner  resumed,  "  will  you  describe  to  us 
what  those  alterations  in  the  plans  for  the  Glenmore  were, 
what  was  the  nature  of  them  ?  " 

The  witness  considered  how  he  was  to  answer  the  question, 
and  then  he  proceeded  to  explain  the  most  important  discrep- 
ancies between  the  building  as  it  had  been  erected  by  Graves 


TRUSTWORTHY  EVIDENCE— ITS  CONVINCINGNESS    133 

and  the  plans  that  had  been  filed  with  the  Building  Depart- 
ment. He  described  the  use  of  the  old  walls  and  foundations, 
the  reduction  in  the  thickness  of  the  bearing-walls  and  parti- 
tions, the  chief  substitutions  of  wood  for  steel  in  the  upper 
stories,  the  omitting  of  fireproof  partitions  and  fire-escapes, 
etc.,  —  in  short,  all  the  methods  of  "  skinning  "  the  construc- 
tion, in  which  the  contractor  was  such  an  adept.  He  referred 
from  time  to  time  to  the  plans  and  used  technical  terms,  which 
he  was  asked  to  explain.  But  the  jury  listened  with  absorbed 
interest,  and  he  kept  on  until  he  had  answered  the  question 
thoroughly. 

"As  an  architect,"  the  coroner  asked,  when  Hart  had  com- 
pleted his  explanation,  "  will  you  state  whether,  in  your  judg- 
ment, these  changes  that  you  have  described,  especially  the 
substitution  of  inflammable  material  for  fireproofing  and  the 
weakening  of  the  main  walls,  were  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  great  loss  of  life  in  the  fire  ?•*.... 

"...  Such  alterations  as  I  have  indicated  tended  to  weaken 
the  walls,  and  in  other  ways  to  bring  the  building  below  the 
danger  limit." 

"  It  was  what  might  be  called  a  fire-trap,  then  ?  " 

"  I  did  not  say  that ! "  .  .  . 

"  Well,  Mr.  Hart,"  a  member  of  the  jury  finally  interposed 
with  a  question,  "can  you  say  that  the  Glenmore  as  it  was 
built  conformed  to  the  building  ordinances  of  the  city  of 
Chicago  ?  "  .  .  . 

"  No,  the  Glenmore  violated  the  ordinances  in  a  number  of 
important  particulars." 

There  was  a  sudden  hush  in  the  room.  This  point  had 
been  established  before  by  different  persons  who  had  been 
examined.  Nevertheless,  the  admission  coming  from  the 
architect  of  the  ill-fated  building  was  an  important  point.1 

The  degree  of  convincingness  of  these  three  kinds  of  evi- 
dence. It  would  seem  that  the  convincingness  of  these 

1  The  Common  Lot.    Robert  Herrick.   pp.  380-383.    The  Macmillan  Co. 


134  EVIDENCE 

three  kinds  of  evidence  is  somewhat  different.  What  a 
man  admits,  much  against  his  will,  may  evidently  be  taken 
for  truth  if  one  is  sure  that  the  testimony  given  is  really 
hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  witness.  If,  however,  a  stu- 
dent uses  a  bit  of  undesigned  testimony,  he  should  assure 
himself  that  the  witness  is  generally  accurate  and  vera- 
cious, and  that  he  is  really  testifying  as  undesignedly  as 
he  appears  to  be.  Comparison  of  the  three  illustrations 
just  given  will  show  that  one  witness  giving  negative  tes- 
timony is  not  so  convincing  as  one  witness  giving  unde- 
signed testimony  or  making  a  hurtful  admission.  A  writer 
may  be  sure  that  his  witness  giving  negative  testimony  is 
veracious,  but  it  is  even  then  perfectly  possible  that  there 
may  have  been  oversight.  If  only  M.  Lescure  were  cited 
in  the  second  illustration  given  above,  the  negative  testi- 
mony, though  it  would  commend  itself,  would  not  be 
unquestionable.  When,  however,  the  critic  shows  that 
several  biographers,  and  these  of  the  best,  fail  to  mention 
the  "  Memoirs,"  the  negative  testimony  becomes  practically 
convincing.  Negative  testimony,  then,  to  be  convincing 
in  itself,  should  be  given  by  several  veracious  witnesses. 
In  other  words,  of  these  three  kinds  of  evidence,  although 
all  three  are  self-commendatory,  only  admissions  undoubt- 
edly hurtful  are  convincing  without  the  successful  applica- 
tion of  one  of  the  other  tests  of  evidence  already  considered. 
External  and  internal  tests.  Each  of  the  tests  of  evidence 
considered  thus  far  questions  the  sanity,  the  good  faith,  or 
the  good  judgment  of  the  witness,  sometimes  more  than 
one  of  these.  These  tests  examine  the  evidence  externally. 
They  consider  the  man  who  gives  the  testimony,  the  con- 
ditions under  which  it  was  given,  whether  the  evidence  as 
a  whole  coincides  with  other  testimony  known  to  be  true, 


FALLACIES  AND  THEIR  DANGERS  135 

whether  it  is  self-contradictory ;  they  do  not  say :  "  Is 
there  anything  faulty  in  the  process  of  thought,  the  rea- 
soning that  has  produced  the  opinion,  or  the  inference 
on  which  it  is  based?  "  If  they  did,  they  would  be  not 
external  but  internal  tests.  It  may  seem,  offhand,  that 
there  is  one  exception  to  this  statement,  —  the  test  of  self- 
contradiction.  However,  this  does  not  analyze  the  logical 
process  involved  in  the  evidence,  but  simply,  looking  at  the 
face  of  the  statement,  points  out  that  an  assertion  made  in 
one  place  is  contradicted  in  another.  Evidently  the  wit- 
ness is  untrustworthy.  No  question,  however,  is  at  the 
moment  asked  as  to  the  process  of  thought  by  which  he 
reached  the  statement.  The  external  tests  ask  :  "  Is  there 
good  reason  to  think  that  the  witness  who  is  testifying  is 
unreliable?"  The  internal  tests  ask  rather:  "  Just  what 
is  the  logical  unsoundness  of  the  argument?'*  The  ex- 
ternal tests  are  applicable  to  testimonial  evidence;  the 
internal  chiefly  to  reasoning,  that  large  class  of  inferen- 
tial evidence  that  has  been  classified  as  circumstantial. 

Fallacies  and  their  dangers.  The  examination  of  evidence 
for  internal  weaknesses  is  a  search  for  fallacies.  By  a  fal- 
lacy is  meant  "-any  unsound  mode  of  arguing  which  appears 
to  demand  our  conviction,  and  to  be  decisive  of  the  ques- 
tion in  hand,  when  in  fairness  it  is  not."  It  is  very  neces- 
sary in  argument  to  guard  carefully  against  such  unsound 
reasoning,  for  not  only  may  an  opponent  intentionally  try 
to  mislead  by  unsound  methods  of  reasoning,  or  —  what 
is  far  more  probable  —  may  use  them  unawares ;  but  any 
worker  in  argumentation  with  the. best  of  intentions  may 
himself  unconsciously  slip  into  them.  A  fallacy  is  very 
often  extremely  hard  to  detect,  for  rarely  is  it  self-evident. 
Generally  it  is  imbedded  in  a  mass  of  other  entirely 


136  EVIDENCE 

trustworthy  material.  It  is  perhaps  but  part  of  a  sen- 
tence in  a  volume  of  many  pages,  yet  if  it  exists  it  may 
be  fatal  to  the  ultimate  convincingness  of  the  argument. 
The  opponents  of  two  recent  books  of  wide  circulation, 
Mr.  Kidd's  Social  Evolution  and  Dr.  Nordau's  Degeneration, 
insist,  not  so  much  that  most  of  the  conclusions  in  each 
book  are  wrong,  as  that  each  book  rests  for  its  force  on 
a  fundamental  fallacy,  which,  if  not  noted,  makes  all  the 
chapters  drawn  from  it  easy  of  acceptance.  Evidently, 
then,  it  is  important  to  know  what  are  the  chief  kinds 
of  fallacies,  and  how  to  recognize  and  avoid  them. 

Attempted  divisions  of  fallacies.  In  the  past  repeated 
attempts  have  been  made  to  classify  definitely  the  differ- 
ent kinds  of  fallacies,  but  experience  has  shown  that  a 
satisfactory  hard  and  fast  division  of  them  has  not  yet 
been  found.  The  divisions  overlap,  some  of-the  fallacies 
falling  into  one  or  another  class  as  the  student  looks  at 
them  from  one  or  another  point  of  view.  The  rough  divi- 
sion used  in  the  following  pages  is  distinctly  open  to  the 
objection  just  stated.  It  is  based,  however,  primarily  on 
the  three  sources  from  which  fallacies  may  arise,  and  there- 
fore should  put  the  student  of  argumentation  on  his  guard. 
An  arguer  must  convince  by  means  of  words.  If  through 
carelessness  or  perversity  he  juggle  with  these  words  and 
use  them  now  in  one  sense  and  now  in  another  it  is  clear 
that  his  reasoning  must  be  unsound.  Lack  of  definition 
is,  then,  the  first  source  of  fallacy.  But  even  if  his  terms 
are  unequivocal  he  may  lead  his  reader  astray  by  stating 
as  a  fact  what  has  come  from  careless  or  erroneous  observa- 
tion on  his  own  part  or  the  part  of  those  on  whom  he  relies. 
Errors  of  observation  thus  cause  a  second  class  of  unsound 
modes  of  reasoning.  If  the  observation  upon  which  the 


THREE  DIVISIONS  OF   FALLACIES  137 

evidence  is  based  has  been  sound  and  the  terms  have  been 
carefully  used  in  well-defined  meanings,  an  arguer  can 
hardly  be  guilty  of  fallacious  work  unless  he  use  .these 
words  and  facts  in  a  reasoning  process  which  is  itself 
unsound.  That  is,  errors  in  reasoning  furnish  the  third 
source  of  fallacious  argument.  From  one  or  more  of  these 
three  causes, — lack  of  definition,  errors  of  observation,  and 
errors  in  the  reasoning  process,  —  come,  then,  unsound 
modes  of  thought  that  invalidate  both  deductive  and  in- 
ductive argument.  As  in  both  these  forms  of  argument 
the  same  causes  produce  vicious  reasoning,  the  two  will 
not  generally  be  considered  separately  in  the  following 
discussion.  Nor  does  the  detailed  classification  under  the 
three  headings  aim  to  be  exhaustive.  The  student  of  argu- 
mentation does  not  need  to  know  how  to  classify  in  intri- 
cate fashion  the  unsound  reasoning  with  which  he  meets. 
His  purpose  is  achieved  when  once  he  learns  how  to  recog- 
nize and  guard  against  the  common  fallacious  processes  to 
which  he  is  himself  liable  and  which  may  confront  him  in 
current  publications.  A  classification  more  intricate  than 
is  necessary  for  this  purpose  falls  outside  the  scope  of  this 
book. 

V.    FALLACIKS   ARISING    FROM  LACK  OF  DEFINITION 

The  moment  a  reader  begins  to  consider  fallacies,  the 
truth  of  what  was  said  in  Chapter  II  as  to  the  importance 
of  definition  in  argumentation  is  emphasized.  A  very 
large  class  of  fallacies  arises  from  an  ignorant  or  a  careless 
^us^oj^Siggag^phrases.  The  reader  saw  in  Chapter  II 
that  careful  definition  avoids  the  confusions,  the  argumen- 
tative errors,  intentional  or  unintentional,  that  may  result 
from  using  words  in  themselves  ambiguous,  ignorantly, 


138  EVIDENCE 

carelessly,  or  with  unfair  purpose.  Whenever  in  an  argu- 
ment words  or  phrases  occur  which  are  ambiguous  or  are 
used  in  an  incorrect  sense,  they  may,  if  unexplained,  pro- 
duce confusion,  intentional  or  unintentional,  and  lead  to 
"  unsound  modes  of  reasoning." 

Undefined  words  with  more  than  one  meaning.  '  On  p.  42 
the  reader  saw  that  the  topic,  "  Was  the  treatment  of  the 
American  Loyalists  by  the  Whigs  justifiable  ?  "  is  liable 
to  lead  to  much  unsound  reasoning.  The  question  was 
meant  to  ask  whether  the  treatment  of  the  American  Loy- 
alists .by  the  English  Whigs  was  justifiable.  A  student 
might  perfectly  well  try  to  prove  the  affirmative  true  on 
the  ground  that  the  treatment  of  certain  American  Loyal- 
ists by  certain  Whigs  -was  justifiable,  and  his  logic  would 
be  unassailable,  except  on  the  ground  that  his  Whigs  were 
the  Americans  in  rebellion  against  Great  Britain,  not  the 
English  Whigs  referred  to  in  the  question.  Naturally  the 
American  Loyalists  could  hardly  expect  from  the  rebellious 
Americans  against  whom  they  had  taken  sides  what  they 
had  a  right  to  expect  from  the  Whigs  in  England  who 
were  aiding  the  Government  to  put  down  the  Revolution. 
The  term  "  Elizabethan  drama  "  is  liable  to  lead  to  similar 
confusion.  Literally,  and  in  common  use,  that  term  means 
the  English  drama  during  Elizabeth's  reign  (1558-1603). 
Students  of  literature,  however,  often  use  the  term  in  an 
extended  sense  to  designate  the  dramatic  work' from  1558 
to  1642.  In  an  argument  this  ambiguity  would  necessi- 
tate explicit  definition.  The  same  danger  also  occurs  when 
a  word  is  used  without  explanation  that  has  both  an  every- 
day meaning  and  one,  more  rarely  used,  from  its  derivation. 
We  often  hear  the  saying,  "  The  exception  proves  the  rule," 
given  as  proof  that  the  exception  to  the  rule  is  what  shows 


FALLACIES  OF  DEFINITION  139 

the  rule  to  be  correct — perfect  nonsense.  Here  the  speaker 
takes  "  proves  "  for  our  word  proves,  when  in  this  case  it 
is  used  in  its  strictly  etymological  meaning  derived  from 
the  Latin  probo,  to  test,  and  the  meaning  is,  "  The  excep- 
tion tests  the  rule."  In  all  these  cases  a  fallacy  is  very 
liable  to  result  when  an  ambiguous  term  is  left  undefined. 

Using  at  will  different  meanings  of  the  same  word.  An-  ^J 
other  form  of  this  fallacy  which  arises  from  the  use  of  an 
ambiguous  word  or  phrase,  is  to  employ  the  same  word  in 
different  parts  of  an  argument  in  two  different  senses. 
For  instance,  a  student  arguing  once  on  the  topic,  "Should 
Art  Museums  be  open  to  the  Public  on  Sunday?"  wrote 
ten  to  a  dozen  pages  of  rather  rambling  matter,  reducible 
to  these  statements :  "  The  world  consists  of  a  cultivated 
few  and  a  mob.  A  mob  will  generally  destroy  a  work  of 
art.  Therefore  the  Museums  should  be  opened  only  to  the 
cultivated  few.  Consequently,  since  the  cultivated  few 
have  leisure  to  attend  Museums  on  week  days,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  open  them  on  Sundays."  Here  the  student 
used  "mob"  in  the  first  sentence  merely  to  signify  the 
mass  of  the  uneducated  or  partially  educated,  the  majority 
of  humanity ;  in  the  second  he  shifted  the  meaning  to  "  a 
crowd  of  overexcited  men  whose  passions  have  overcome 
their  better  judgments."  * 

Words  used  as  identical- because  they  look  alike.  Another 
student  recently  wrote  a  theme  to  prove  that  college  men 
should  vote  the  Democratic  ticket.  His  six-page  argument 
could  be  reduced  to  this :  "  It  is  a  generally  accepted  prin- 
ciple in  this  country  that  he  is  the  best  citizen  who  is  the 
most  democratic.  Now  he  who  consistently  holds  to  the 
principles  of  one  of  the  two  great  national  parties  is  a 
thorough  Democrat.  Therefore,  all  men  should  vote  the 


140  EVIDENCE 

Democratic  ticket."  Plainly  the  difficulty  here  is  with 
democratic  and  Democrat.  The  adjective  means  broad- 
minded,  liberal,  ready  to  do  one's  part  for  the  welfare  of 
the  State,  and  this  the  writer  uses  correctly.  The  noun 
is  commonly  used  simply  in  opposition  to  Republican,  to 
mean  one  who  is  a  member  of  the  Democratic  party,  who 
believes  in  its  platform  as  formulated  at  its  national  con- 
vention. This  meaning  the  writer  ignores,  treating  Demo- 
crat as  if  it  meant  the  same  as  democratic.  Here  the 
student  has  not  used  just  the  same  word  in  two  different 
senses,  but  thinking  because  the  two  words  looked  alike 
they  must  mean  the  same  thing,  he  has  treated  them  as 
though  they  were  identical  in  meaning.  In  our  language 
such  confidence  in  resemblances  between  words  is  ill- 
founded.  Many  look  alike  that  come  from  different 
sources  and  should  carry  different  ideas. 

Unexplained  words  used  with  meanings  which  do  not  belong 
to  them.  Dr.  Whately  gives  as  an  example  of  another  form 
of  this  fallacy  what  seems  even  better  to  illustrate  using 
words  with  meanings  which  do  not  belong  to  them.  He 
considers  the  argument  sometimes  based  on  the  often  used 
word  "representative."  "Assuming  that  its  right  mean- 
ing must  correspond  exactly  with  the  strict  sense  of  the 
verb  c  represent,'  the  Sophist  persuades  the  multitude  that 
a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  bound  to  be  guided 
in  all  points  by  the  opinion  of  his  constituents :  and,  in 
short,  to  be  merely  their  spokesman :  whereas,  law,  and 
custom,  which  in  this  case  may  be  considered  as  fixing 
the  meaning  of  the  term,  require  no  such  thing,  but  enjoin 
a  representative  to  act  according  to  the  best  of  his  own 
judgment,  and  on  his  own  responsibility."1  In  discussing 

1  Elements  of  Logic.    Whately.    p.  197. 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  FALLACY  OF  AMBIGUITY     141 

the  means  of  remedying  an  alleged  "  indifference  "  on  the 
part  of  certain  college  students,  a  writer  fell  into  ttiis  fal- 
lacy through  the  constant  use  of  the  word  "  indifference  " 
as  though  it  was  equivalent  to  lack  of  interest  in  athletics. 
Had  he  carefully  defined  the  term  he  would  have  seen  that 
the  word  unless  qualified  could  not  fairly  be  used  in  so 
narrow  a  significance.  In  like  fallacious  fashion  students 
use  relative  terms, —  improvement,  increase, progress,  etc.— 
as  though  they  were  absolute.  One  writer  argued  that  a 
ship-subsidy  system  was  needed  only  to  secure  improve- 
ment in  our  merchant  marine.  Then,  proving  that  our 
merchant  marine  was  showing  steady  improvement,  he 
drew  the  conclusion  that  no  ship-subsidy  was  needed. 
Plainly,  in  such  cases,  whether  the  incorrect  use  be  inten- 
tional or  not,  careful  definition  of  the  word  or  phrase  on 
which  the  argument  turns  will  reveal  the  fallacy. 

Summary  of  this  fallacy.  When  a  reader  remembers 
that  these  ambiguities  of  phrase,  these  incorrect  uses,  are 
likely  to  occur  not  merely  in  the  main  thesis  but  in  any 
one  of  the  very  many  sentences  that  make  up  an  argument, 
and  that  they  constantly  combine  with  other  fallacies  still 
to  be  mentioned,  as  question-begging  epithets,  etc.,  he  must 
see  how  important  it  is  that  he  should  be  on  his  guard 
against  the  fallacies  arising  from  lack  of  definition.  Let 
him  remember  that  whenever  he  uses  a  word  or  phrase 
which  may  be  ambiguous,  he  should  define  it ;  that  when- 
ever his  opponent  or  even  his  ally  uses  one,  he  should  insist 
on  a  definition  of  it;  that  he  should  never  use  words  or 
phrases  in  senses  which  do  not  belong  to  them;  that  he 
should  never  allow  an  opponent  or  an  ally  to  use  words 
incorrectly.  Definition  is  either  the  prevention  or  the  destruc- 
tion  of  fallacies  of  this  class. 


142  EVIDENCE 

VI.   FALLACIES  ARISING  FROM  ERRORS  OF 
OBSERVATION 

In  order  that  argument  may  be  sound  it  is  not  enough 
that  there  should  be  no  juggling  with  ambiguous  terms, 
but  the  conclusion  must  also  be  derived  by  accurate  logical 
processes  from  sound  facts  and  statements,  that  is,  there 
must  be  no  false  assumptions.1  That  the  facts  may  be 
sound  and  the  statements  accurate  depends  upon  observa- 
tion. If  this  observation  be  neglected,  carelessly  performed, 
or  performed  by  bad  methods  it  will  result  in  fallacies  of 
observation,  that  is,  in  the  assumption  of  facts  or  state- 
ments that  are  wholly  or  in  part  false. 

The  errors  of  observation  arise,  for  the  most  part,  from 
in&tlention,  prAnn^p^ivAfl  npinirm  or  the  confuftiaftuii.  what 
we  have  inferred  from  sense  impressions  with  the  sense 
impressions  themselves.2  If  we  do  not  attend  to  the  obser- 
vation of  instances  but  trust  to  memory  or  common  report 
we  are  very  sure  to  overlook  many  instances ;  individual 
or  social  memory  is  much  more  retentive  of  instances  that 
make  for  a  generally  accepted  tenet  or  superstition  than  of 
negative  instances.  Many  persons  have  vivid  recollection 
of  cases  where  thirteen  at  table  preceded  the  death  of  one 
of  the  thirteen,  and  have  quite  forgotten  the  more  numer- 
ous cases  where  death  did  not  follow,  or  where  it  did  follow 
after  fifteen  or  sixteen  had  been  at  table  together.  Students 

1  Throughout  this  book  a  student  should  distinguish  carefully  between 
a  presumption  and  an  assumption.     When  a  man  is  said  to  have  a  pre- 
sumption in  his  favor,  this  means  that  his  proposition  ' '  is  assumed  to  be 
true  in  the   absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary."     (Hill's  Principles  of 
Rhetoric,  p.  332.)     A  man  makes  an  assumption  whenever  he  advances 
without  support  a  statement,  the  truth  of  which  is  not  generally  admitted. 

2  This  division  and  the  illustrations  that  follow  are  based  generally  on 
Mill.     A  System  of  Logic.    J.  S.  Mill.    Bk.  V,  Chap.  IV. 


FALLACIES  FROM  ERRORS  OF  OBSERVATION     143 

should  carefully  note  the  fact  that  chance  memory  is  one 
of  the  most  unsafe  kinds  of  evidence^ancT  yet  by  no  means 
uncommon.  Inattention  becomes  even  more  dangerous, 
however,  when,  as  often  happens,  it  is  accompanied  by  a 
strong  preconceived  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  observer. 
It  is  well  established  that  persons  who  have  thought  that 
they  were  conscientiously  attending  to  the  observation  of 
instances  have  been  completely  deceived  because  their  pre- 
conceived theories  resulted  in  neglect  of  the  very  instances 
that  would  have  overthrown  their  theory. 

The  opponents  of  Copernicus  argued  that  the  earth  did  not 
move,  because  if  it  did,  a  stone  let  fall  from  the  top  of  a  high 
tower  would  not  reach  the  ground  at  the  foot  of  the  tower, 
but  at  a  little  distance  from  it,  in  a  contrary  direction  to  the 
earth's  course  ;  in  the  same  manner  (said  they)  as,  if  a  ball 
is  let  drop  from  the  mast-head  while  the  ship  is  in  full  sail, 
it  does  not  fall  exactly  at  the  foot  of  the  mast,  but  nearer  to 
the  stern  of  the  vessel.  The  Copernicans  would  have  silenced 
these  objectors  at  once  if  they  had  tried  dropping  a  ball  from 
the  mast-head,  because  they  would  have  found  that  it  does 
fall  exactly  at  the  foot,  as  the  theory  requires  :  but  no  ;  they 
admitted  the  spurious  fact,  and  struggled  vainly  to  make  out 
a  difference  between  the  two  cases.  "  The  ball  was  no  part 
of  the  ship  —  and  the  motion  forward  was  not  natural,  either 
to  the  ship  or  to  the  ball.  The  stone,  on  the  other  hand,  let 
fall  from  the  top  of  the  tower,  was  a  part  of  the  earth ;  and 
therefore,  the  diurnal  and  annual  revolutions  which  were  nat- 
ural to  the  earth,  were  also  natural  to  the  stone  ;  the  stone 
would,  therefore,  retain  the  same  motion  with  the  tower,  and 
strike  the  ground  precisely  at  the  bottom  of  it." 

It  often  happens,  moreover,  that  the  error  of  observation 
is  not  in  regard  to  instances  but  to  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions that  vitally  affect  the  argument.  Here  again  the 


144  EVIDENCE 

error  may  arise  from  careless  inattention  or  from  precon- 
ceived theories  that  blind  the  eyes  of  the  observer.  More- 
over, when  the  circumstances  are  commonplace  they  are 
especially  likely  to  be  disregarded  while  the  attention  is 
fixed  on  what  is  striking  and  picturesque.  The  following 
examples  from  Mill  illustrate  the  dangerousness  and  the 
prevalence  of  this  form  of  the  fallacy. 

Cures  really  produced  by  rest,  regimen,  and  amusement, 
have  been  ascribed  to  the  medicinal,  or  occasionally  to  the 
supernatural,  means  which  were  put  in  requisition.  "  The 
celebrated  John  Wesley,  while  he  commemorates  the  triumph 
of  sulphur  and  supplication  over  his  bodily  infirmity,  forgets 
to  appreciate  the  resuscitating  influence  of  four  months  repose 
from  his  apostolic  labors ;  and  such  is  the  disposition  of  the 
human  mind  to  place  confidence  in  the  operation  of  mysteri- 
ous agents,  that  we  find  him  more  disposed  to  attribute  his 
cure  to  a  brown  paper  plaster  of  egg  and  brimstone,  than 
to  Dr.  Fothergill's  salutary  prescription  of  country  air,  rest, 
asses'  milk,  and  horse  exercise." 

Take,  for  instance,  the  vulgar  notion,  so  plausible  at  the 
first  glance,  of  the  encouragement  given  to  industry  by  lavish 
expenditure.  A,  who  spends  his  whole  income,  and  even  his 
capital,  in  expensive  living,  is  supposed  to  give  great  employ- 
ment to  labor.  B,  who  lives  upon  a  small  portion,  and  invests 
the  remainder  in  the  funds,  is  thought  to  give  little  or  no 
employment.  For  everybody  sees  the  gains  which  are  made 
by  A's  tradesmen,  servants,  and  others,  while  his  money  is 
spending.  B's  savings,  on  the  contrary,  pass  into  the  hands 
of  the  person  whose  stock  he  purchased,  who  with  it  pays  a 
debt  he  owed  to  his  banker,  who  lends  it  again  to  some  mer- 
chant or  manufacturer  ;  and  the  capital,  being  laid  out  in 
hiring  spinners  and  weavers,  or  carriers  and  the  crews  of 
merchant  vessels,  not  only  gives  immediate  employment  to  as 
much  industry  at  once  as  A  employs  during  the  whole  of  his 


FALLACIES  FROM  ERRORS  OF  OBSERVATION   145 

career,  but  coming  back  with  increase  by  the  sales  of  the  goods 
which  have  been  manufactured  or  imported,  forms  a  fund  for 
the  employment  of  the  same  and  perhaps  a  greater  quantity 
of  labor  in  perpetuity.  But  the  careless  observer  does  not  see, 
and  therefore  does  not  consider,  what  becomes  of  B's  taoney; 
he  does  see  what  is  done  with  A's :  he  observes  not  the  far 
greater  quantity  which  it  prevents  from  being  fed:  and  thence 
the  prejudices,  universal  to  the  time  of  Adam  Smith,  and 
even  yet  only  exploded  among  persons  more  than  commonly 
instructed,  that  prodigality  encourages  industry,  and  parsi- 
mony, is  a  discouragement  J;o  it. 

As  injjieiiiioii  and  preconceived  opinion  are  responsible 
for  the  first  two  fallacies  of  observation,  ignorance  and 
weak  analytical  power  are  the  causes  of  the  third.  At 
first  sight  it  may  seem  easy  to  distinguish  between  what 
we  see,  hear,  or  feel  and  the  impressions  that  these  pro- 
duce on  us ;  but  reflection  will  show  tbat  it  is  a  danger 
to  which  we  all  are  liable.  For  instance,  how  often  a  train 
moving  in  the  opposite  direction  has  convinced  us  that 
our  train  has  started,  or  a  trailing  bit  of  white  mist  in  low 
ground  has  made  a  credulous  person  declare  that  he  has 
seen  a  ghost.  Obviously  here  the  error  lies  not  "in  the 
fact  that  something  is  unseen  but  that  something  seen  is 
seen  wrong." 

"  One  of  the  most  celebrated  examples  of  an  universal 
error  produced  by  mistaking  an  inference  for  the  direct 
evidence  of  the  senses,  was  the  resistance  made,  on  the 
ground  of  common  sense,  to  the  Copernican  system. 
People  fancied  they  saw  the  sun  rise  and  set,  the  stars 
revolve  in  circles  round  the  pole.  We  now  know  they 
saw  no  such  thing :  what  they  really  saw  were  a  set  of 
appearances,  equally  reconcilable  with  the  theory  they  held 
and  with  a  totally  different  one." 


146  EVIDENCE 

"  In  proportion  to  any  person's  deficiency  of  knowledge 
and  mental  cultivation,  is  generally  his  inability  to  discrim- 
inate '  between  his  inferences  and  the  perceptions  on  which 
they  were  grounded.  Many  a  marvelous  tale,  many  a  scan- 
dalous anecdote,  owes  its  origin  to  this  incapacity.  The 
narrator  relates,  not  what  he  saw  or  heard,  but  the  impres- 
sion which  he  derived  from  what  he  saw  or  heard,  and  of 
which  perhaps  the  greater  part  consisted  of  inference, 
though  the  whole  is  related  not  as  inference,  but  as  mat- 
ter-of-fact. The  difficulty  of  inducing  witnesses  to  restrain 
within  any  moderate  limits  the  intermixture  of  their  infer- 
ences with  the  narrative  of  their  perceptions,  is  well  known 
to  experienced  cross-examiners  ;  and  still  more  is  this  the 
case  when  ignorant  persons  attempt  to  describe  any  natural 
phenomenon."  l 

VII.   FALLACIES  DUE  TO  ERRORS  IN  REASONING 

The  third  class  of  fallacies  arise  not  simply  from  ambi- 
guity or  from  errors  of  observation  but  from  an  actual 
error  in  the  reasoning  process,  an  error  which  a  trained 
critic  could  detect  without  any  previous  knowledge  of  the 
subject,  and  on  account  of  which  he  would  be  justified  in 
saying  not  that  the  conclusion  is  false  but  that  the  conclu- 
sion is  unsound  because  the  method  of  reasoning  is  falla- 
cious. Here  as  elsewhere,  however,  it  often  happens  that 
the  fallacy  might  have  been  classified  in  one  of  the  earlier 
divisions,  for  ambiguity  or  erroneous  observation  is  often 
at  the  root  of  the  difficulty.  Of  these  fallacies  oj  reason- 
inn-  there  arc  four  chief  forms  :  hasty  ^enerati/ation,  l 
tin.:  (juestion,  iton  */'^/.*V//r,  and  ignoring  the  (question. 


1  A  System  of  Logic.    J.  S.  Mill.    p.  483.    Harper  &  Bros.    1846. 


HASTY  GENERALIZATION  — BEGGING  QUESTION     147 

JIasty  generalization.  In  the  fallacies  to  which  inductive 
reasoning  is  liable  none  is  more  common  or  more  dangerous 
than  that  of  hasty  generalization1  either  from  insufficient 
or  improperly  selected  samples  or  from  undue  assumption 
that  a  general  law  exists  and  hence  careless  observation. 
Such  errors  are  especially  likely  to  occur  in  generalizations 
as  to  human  beings  and  their  actions.  Most  of  us  can 
recall  instances  in  which  travelers  in  a  foreign  country 
have  generalized  as  to  the  quality  of  hotels  or  the  char- 
acter of  the  natives  —  their  honesty,  for  instance  —  on 
patently  insufficient  evidence.  A  hasty  generalization 
subjected  the  Populist  orator  of  the  following  anecdote 
to  embarrassing  questions.  "  A  Populist  orator  in  western 
Kansas  was  painting  in  lurid  colors  the  down-trodden  con- 
dition of  the  people  when  a  lanky. young  man  obtained 
permission  to  ask  this  question :  4  You  say  we  are  all  poor 
out  here  in  Kansas.  Well,  I  have  just  sold  my  wheat  for 
enough  to  pay  off  the  three  thousand  dollar  mortgage  on 
my  farm  and  to  get  my  woman  a  new  dress  besides.  Am 
I  suffering?'" 

gegging^the :  question.  A  second  form  of  the  fallacies 
due  to  errors  in  reasoning  is  Begging  the  Question,  tech- 
nically called  Petitio  Principii.  This  fallacy,  by  no  means 
uncommon  in  the  work  of  beginners  in  Argumentation, 
occurs  whenever  a  student,  consciously  or  unconsciously, 
either  (1)  makes  an  assumption  which  is  the  same  as  or 
results  ?rom  the  conclusion  he  is  to  prove  true,  or  (2)  asserts 
unqualifiedly  the  truth  of  a  premise  which  itself  needs 
support. 

1.  Arguing  in  a  circle.  The  crudest  form  of  begging  the 
question  is  that  in  which  the  reasoner  assumes  the  truth 

1  Other  instances  of  this  fallacy  are  given  on  p.  94. 


148  EVIDENCE 

of  an  assumption  which  is  equivalent  to  the  conclusion  or 
results  from  it,  commonly  called  arguing  in  a  circle.  A 
student  trying  to  prove  that  Mr.  Kipling  was  not  a  great 
poet  wished  to  establish  the  point  that  many  of  Mr.  Kip- 
ling's poems  were  in  grossly  bad  taste.  His  attempt  was 
as  follows :  "  Many  of  these  poems  are  in  grossly  bad  taste, 
f(5r  they  are  so  condemned  by  critics  of  refinement,  inas- 
much as  if  they  do  not  condemn  them  they  cannot  be 
called  men  of  refinement." 

In  similar  way  a  writer  on  the  question,  "  Are  the  enjoy- 
ment and  the  cultivation  of  the  Fine  Arts  essential  to  the 
highest  type  of  civilization?  "  begs  the  question  in  a  prem- 
ise which  defines  his  use  of  "  civilization,"  —  "  The  sum 
of  the  ^material  and  moral  acquisitions  of  a  race,  these 
qualities  being  embodied  in  the  Fine  Arts."  Grant  this 
definition,  and  you  grant  the  conclusion  sought,  for  if  there 
can  be  no  civilization  without  Fine  Art,  it  is  clear  that  in 
the  highest  type  of  civilization  the  enjoyment  and  cultiva- 
tion of  the  Fine  Arts  must  be  present. 

The  following  illustrates  begging  the  question  by  taking 
as  a  premise  what  is  true  only  if  the  conclusion  has  already 
been  granted  to  be  correct.  A  reader  of  the  book  men- 
tioned p.  131,  which  purports  to  be  the  "  Memoirs  "  of  the 
Princess  Lamballe,  argues  that  it  is  genuine  because  it 
records  such  and  such  facts,  the  reality  of  these  facts  rest- 
ing on  the  evidence  of  the  "  Memoirs  "  in  question.  Such 
argument  is  by  no  means  uncommon  when  college  students 
treat  questions  like  these :  "  Was  John  the  Author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel?"  "Did  Moses  write  the  Pentateuch?" 

2.  Fallacies  of  assertion.  The  commonest  forms  of  beg- 
ging the  question,  however,  are  those  in  which  a  reasoner 
unqualifiedly  asserts  the  truth  of  a  premise  which  itself 


ARGUING  FROM  A  FALSE   ASSUMPTION          149 

needs  proof,  either  because  it  is  false  or  merely  because 
the  reader  has  no  reason  to  accept  it  as  true  and  therefore 
has  a  perfect  right  to  reject  it  as  a  reason  why  he  should 
change  his  belief.  If  an  assumption  is  actually  false  this 
falsity  should  usually  be  determined  by  application  of  the 
tests  for  witnesses  or  by  discovering  the  ambiguity  or  the 
error  of  observation  which  has  occasioned  the  false  state- 
ment. In  order,  however,  that  the  student  may  realize 
the  many  forms  that  bad  evidence  may  take  it  seems  well 
to  consider  here  the  chief  varieties  of  assertiveness  to  which 
his  work  is  liable.  These  important  varieties  are  four  in 
number :  (I)  Arguing  from  a  false  assumption ;  (2)  Argu- 
ing from  ambiguous  evidence  ;  (3)  Stating  without  support 
what  should  be  proved  true ;  (4)  Unwarranted  assumption 
of  a  causal  relationship. 

Arguing, from  a  false  assumption.  The  worst  form  of  the 
fallacy  of  assertion  i^KTase  a^'argument  on  something 
not  true,  the  fallacy  of  a  false  assumption.  For  instance, 
if  some  one  trying  to  prove  the  skill  of  the  Swiss  with  the 
bow  in  past  times  used  the  story  of  Tell  and  the  apple  as 
proof,  he  would  fall  into  this  fallacy,  since  this  story  of 
our  childhood  has  been  proved  false.  A  form  this  fallacy 
often  takes  in  works  of  history,  economics,  and  philosophy, 
is  the  following.  Early  in  the  book  the  writer  makes  a 
shrewd  guess  at  past  conditions,  at  probable  causes,  or 
develops  a  theory  that  he  says  is  possible.  Later  he  refers 
to  his  guesses  as  facts,  the  possible  theory  as  an  established 
fact.  Consider  what  pitfalls  an  unwary  student  might 
have  found  in  basing  argument  on  either  of  the  statements 
whose  erroneousness  is  laid  bare  in  the  two  following 
quotations.  The  second  is  especially  dangerous,  more- 
over, because  the  errors  occurred  in  a  book  of  reference, 


150  EVIDENCE 

and  in  such  a  work,  the  falsity  of  stating  as  a  fact  what  is 
merely  a  guess  is  no  less  misleading  than  a  direct  untruth. 

Hume  says  :  "  It  is  in  vain  at  present  to  seek  improbabili- 
ties in  Nicholas  Hubert's  dying  confession,  and  to  magnify 
the  smallest  difficulty  into  a  contradiction.  It  was  certainly 
a  regular  judicial  paper,  given  in  regularly  and  judicially, 
and  ought  to  have  been  canvassed  at  the  time,  if  the  persons 
whom  it  concerned  had  been  assured  of  their  own  innocence." 
They  never  saw  it :  it  was  authenticated  by  no  judicial  author- 
ity :  it  was  not  "  given  in  regularly  and  judicially,"  but 
was  first  held  back,  and  then  sent  by  Moray,  when  it  suited 
his  policy,  out  of  revenge  on  Lethington.  Finally,  it  was  not 
"  a  dying  confession."  Dying  confessions  are  made  in  prison, 
or  on  the  scaffold,  on  the  day  of  death.1 

The  notice  of  'Shakspere's  Macbeth  is  largely  made  up  of 
a  tissue  of  conjectures  which  no  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  accepts. 
We  are  informed  in  large  type  at  the  beginning  of  the  article 
that  this  tragedy  was  "  first  played  in  Scotland  about  1601, 
but  revised  by  Shakspere  and  produced  at  court  about  1606, 
and  on  the  public  stage  in  1610."  A  greater  number  of 
unverified  statements  could  scarcely  have  been  juggled  into 
so  few  words.  If  there  be  any  evidence  that  Macbeth  was 
first  played  in  Scotland,  that  it  was  afterwards  revised  by 
Shakspere,  that  it  was  produced  at  court  about  1606,  or  at 
any  time,  that  a  term  of  years  elapsed  between  its  revision 
for  production  at  court  and  its  public  representation,  all  the 
recent  editors,  including  Furness,  Furnivall,  and  Wright,  must 
have  entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  suppress  such  evidence.2 

Another  form  of  this  fallacy  of  false  assumption  is  the 
use  sometimes  made  by  students  of  metaphors,  similes, 
invented  illustrations.  These  may,  of  course,  be  rightly 
used  to  make  clearer  the  meaning  of  a  writer,  but  he  should 

1  The  Mystery  of  Nary  Stuart.     Andrew  Lang.     p.  166. 

a  Melville  B.  Anderson  in  a  review  of  a  cyclopedia  of  names. 


ARGUING  FROM  AMBIGUOUS  EVIDENCE         151 

never  use  them  as  facts  upon  which  he  can  base  an  argu- 
ment. For  instance,  a  student  writing  on  the  question, 
"Is  Weismann's  theory  of  Heredity  sound?"  proved  it  to 
be  untrue  by  using  numerous  examples  of  acquired  charac- 
teristics in  parents  transmitted  to  their  offspring.  When 
asked  to  state  where  he  found  these  extremely  valuable 
data,  he  said  that  he  had  concocted  them,  and  that  what 
he  meant  to  say  was :  "  If  in  children  we  should  find  a 
case  like  this,  and  that  —  and  considering  the  remarkable 
cases  we  do  see,  why  might  not  this  happen?  —  then 
Weismann's  theory  would  be  unsound."  Students  of  argu- 
mentation should  not  forget  that  though  metaphors,  similes, 
imaginary  cases,  are  admirable  in  showing  what  a  writer 
means,  they  should  never  be  used  as  proof  of  the  truth 
of  anything.  If  a  student  does  use  them  as  proof,  he  at 
once  begs  the  important  question,  "  Are  what  you  take 
as  facts  really  facts  ?  "  and  falls  into  the  fallacy  of  false 
assumption. 

Arguing  from  ambiguous  evidence.    Another  phase   of 

begging  the  question  is  a  favorite  with  careless  reasoners, 

-  that  of  broad  references  to  evidence  that  under  one 

interpretation  may  prove  their  point  but  that  does  not 

necessarily  imply  what  the  reasoners  assume  that  it  does. 

t/  Sr    J 

Often  a  college  student  refers  to  some  writer,  to  some 
chapter,  paragraph,  or  sentence,  which  certainly  may  be  so 
interpreted  as  to  support  his  ideas,  but  is  equally  open  to 
other  interpretations.  Plainly,  then,  he  leaves  unsettled 
just  the  point  for  the  moment  most  demanding  decision, 
whether  his  interpretation  or  another  is  the  more  correct. 
Unless  the  passage  referred  to  can  have  but  one  meaning, 
he  should  either  not  use  it,  or  as  he  uses  it  should  show 
why  his  interpretation  of  it  is  preferable  to  any  other. 


152  EVIDENCE 

A  common  form  of  this  fallacy  is  to  offer  an  analogy 
between  two  cases  as  proof  that  the  result  found  in  the 
first  case  may  be  expected  in  the  second.  There  are  two 
possible  dangers  in  this.  In  the  first  place,  the  analogy 
may  be  false,  not  real ;  in  the  second  place,  until  it  is  shown 
that  the  point  of  similarity  is  connected  with  the  point  in 
question,  the  so-called  argument  is  ambiguous  and  should 
not  be  used  to  prove  anything  true  or  false.  Here  is  an 
attempt  to  use  the  argument  from  analogy  as  if  in  itself  it 
had  probative  force :  — 

The  history  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  is  known  by 
everybody  from  Maine  to  California.  It  is  the  greatest 
money-making  industry  in  the  world.  The  X.Y.Z.  Company 
does  not  expect  to  achieve  such  great  financial  success  as  the 
Standard  Oil  Company,  but  it  is  in  the  same  line  of  busi- 
ness —  REFINING  —  and  therefore  its  stock  should  be 
purchased  for  the  very  great  profits  that  seem  to  be  assured 
for  those  who  invest  now  in  its  treasury  stock. 

In  such  a  case  the  analogy  is  clearly  worthless,  but  even 
in  an  instance  like  the  following  there  must  be  ambiguity 
until  the  analogy  is  shown  to  be  true  for  all  points  vitally 
connected  with  the  point  under  discussion. 

The  ground  upon  which  Her  Majesty's  Government  justi- 
fies, or  at  least  defends,  the  course  of  the  Canadian  vessels 
rests  upon  the  fact  that  they  are  committing  their  acts  of 
destruction  on  the  high  seas,  viz.,  more  than  3  marine  miles 
from  the  shore  line.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Her  Majesty's 
Government  would  abide  by  this  rule  if  the  attempt  were 
made  to  interfere  with  the  pearl  fisheries  of  Ceylon,  which 
extend  more  than  20  miles  from  the  shore  line  and  have  been 
enjoyed  by  England  without  molestation  ever  since  their 
acquisition.1 

1  Behring  Sea  Tribunal     p.  52.     Washington,  B.C.     1893. 


I 


STATING  WHAT  SHOULD  BE  PROVED  TRUE     153 

In  this  example  Senator  Morgan  did  not  find  a  past 
case  of  seal-fishing  from  which  to  draw  an  argument,  but 
pointed  out  in  pearl-diving  and  catching  seals  a  likeness, 
an  analogy,  in  that  both  are  called  fishing.  This  is  cor- 
rect, but  for  the  analogy  to  have  any  probative  force, 
Senator  Morgan  must  show  some  necessary  connection 
between  the  mere  existence  of  so-called  fishing  in  both  cases 
and  his  desired  conclusion  that  both  must  have  the  same 
limitations.  It  is  perfectly  possible  that  the  conditions  of 
pearl-fishing  differ  sufficiently  from  those  of  seal-fishing  to 
make  it  impossible  to  show  this  connection.  In  that  case 
the  analogy,  though  it  exists,  proves  nothing  true  or  false. 
An  analogy  at  best,  then,  shows  only  resemblance,  unless 
it  can  be  proved  to  have  some  necessary  connection  with 
the  result  in  question.1 

Stating  without  support  what  should  be  proved  true.  The 
simplest  form  of  begging  the  question  by  undue  assump- 
tion of  a  premise  is  to  leave  without  evidential  support  a 
statement  which  should  be  proved  true  because  it  is  neither 
self-evident  nor  generally  known,'  and  therefore  cannot  be 
convincing,  however  true,  until  the  truth  is  established 
satisfactorily.2  A  student  defending  the  policy  of  the 
Beaconsfield  ministry  toward  Russia,  after  showing  that 
whatever  may  be  considered  the  "  Key  to  the  East "  should 
not  be  in  hands  hostile  to  England,  asserted  triumphantly : 
"  Lord  Beaconsfield"  (certainly  a  prejudiced  witness)  "said 
that  Constantinople  is  the  Key  to  the  East,"  and  then  drew 
the  conclusion :  "  Therefore  it  should  not  pass  into  the 

1  For  another  illustration  of  an  ambiguous  analogy  see  p.  191.     In 
this  case  the  analogy  was  turned  against  the  man  who  used  it. 

2  This  fallacy  of  assertion  has  been  fully  discussed  in  Section  1  of 
this  chapter.     For  further  illustration  see  the  assertive  forensic  in  the 
Appendix. 


154  EVIDENCE 

hands  of  Russia,  a  power  hostile  to  England's  interests." 
What  at  the  moment  demanded  proof  was  that  Constanti- 
nople is  unquestionably  the  "  Key  to  the  East,"  and  until 
the  writer  showed  this,  he  made  an  undue  assumption  and 
begged  the  question. 

Unwarranted  assumption  of  a  causal  relationship.  Among 
the  most  insidious  fallacies  are  those  technically  called  non 
causa  pro  causa  and  post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc  which  arise 
from  mistaking  for  a  cause  an  effect  or  something  habitu- 
ally connected  with  the  result  —  perhaps  by  mere  coinci- 
dence—  or  a  usual  antecedent.  It  is  necessary  for  the 
human  mind  to  search  for  causes  for  known  results  and 
where  the  cause  is  not  unmistakable  there  is  a  natural  tend- 
ency to  assume  some  cause.  This  is  especially  likely  to 
be  the  case  in  inductive  reasoning l  where  many  arguments 
rest  upon  at  least  a, probable  causal  relationship.  It  often 
happens  that  a  mere  sign  of  the  presence  of  the  result  in 
question  is  mistaken  for  a  cause  of  it  (non  causa  pro  causa). 
For  instance,  a  large  part  of  the  recent  discussion  about 
free  silver  rested  on  the  idea  that  since  there  is  usually 
much  silver  when  there  is  wealth  in  a  country,  much  silver 
is  the  cause  of  wealth.  Really,  it  is  not  the  silver  that 
makes  the  wealth,  but  the  wealth  that  demands  much  sil- 
ver as  a  convenient  medium  of  exchange.2  Another  very 
common  form  of  this  unwarranted  assumption  is  to  con- 
sider that,  since  two  phenomena  follow  one  another,  one 
must  be  cause  and  the  other  effect.  This  form  of  fallacy 
is  a  stock-in-trade  of  the  demagogue.  Pointing  to  desirable 
economic  or  political  conditions  which  have  just  begun  to 
appear,  he  names  some  recent  legislative  measure  of  his 

1  See  Section  3,  pp.  93-108. 

2  Elements  of  Logic.    Whately.    p.  224. 


ASSUMPTION  OF  A  CAUSAL  RELATIONSHIP      155 

party,  and  declares  that  the  desirable  results  come  from  it. 
A  college  student,  debating  the  question,  "  Is  civilization 
harmful  to  the  Indian?"  developed  this  line  of  argument: 
"  The  Zunis  are  the  most  civilized  of  the  Indian  tribes ; 
the  Zunis  are  dying  off  fastest ;  therefore  civilization  is 
destructive  to  the  Indian."  Recently,  one  of  the  Boston 
daily  papers  gave  considerable  space  to  a  discussion  of  the 
value  of  vivisection  and  the  extent  to  which  it  is  practiced 
in  this  country.  At  this  time  the  following  illustration  of 
this  fallacy  appeared  in  one  of  its  columns : 

And  that  animals  are  systematically  stolen  for  this  purpose 
[vivisection]  there  is  some  ground  for  belief.  In  one  day  the 
advertising  columns  of  a  single  daily  paper  had  six  advertise- 
ments of  lost  dogs.  An  Irish  setter  was  lost  from  Dorches- 
ter ;  another  Irish  setter  from  Winthrop ;  a  little  fox  terrier 
from  Hingham ;  a  large  smooth-coated  St.  Bernard  from  Eox- 
bury ;  a  small  Skye  terrier  from  Watertown,  and  a  brindle 
and  white  bull  terrier  from  West  Koxbury.  Of  course  these 
advertisements  could  have  represented  but  a  proportion  of 
the  dogs  "  lost "  in  and  around  Boston  on  that  day. 

Many  of  our  common  superstitions  rest  on  the  fallacy 
that  what  happens  after  an  event  is  probably  caused  by  it. 
What  child  has  not  heard  some  one  say,  after  a  day  of  petty 
annoyances:  "Well,  what  could  I  expect?  I  got  out  of 
bed  on  the  wrong  side  this  morning,"  or,  "  It  is  always  the 
way.  After  I  started  from  home  I  went  back  three  times 
for  things  I  had  forgotten.  That  always  brings  bad  luck." 
All  th'ese  illustrations  show  what  logicians  have  called  the 
fallacy  post  hoc  ergo  propter  hoc. 

In  this  fallacy  and  the  closely  allied  form  illustrated  just 
before  it,  non  causa  pro  causa,  thinkers  fail  to  remember 
two  ideas  that  should  never  be  forgotten  when  a  cause  for 


156  EVIDENCE 

a  result  is  named :  they  must  make  sure  (1)  that  there  is 
some  causal  connection  between  the  two ;  and  (2)  that  the 
cause  assigned  is  sufficient  to  produce  the  result  named. 
Since  they  assume  just  what  they  should  prove  true,  they 
really  beg  the  question.  These  writers  should  have  remem- 
bered, also :  (1)  that  because  there  seems  to  be  some  pos- 
sible connection  between  two  phenomena,  it  does  not 
necessarily  exist,  and  if  there  is  some  connection,  it  is  not 
necessarily  causal ;  (2)  that  it  is  very  rare  indeed  that  any 
phenomenon  is  the  result  of  one  cause  only ;  and  (3)  that 
when  many  causes  are  at  work,  some  may  negative  others, 
and  the  cause  assigned  for  the  resutt  may  not  be  at  all  the 
reason  for  it. 

The  illustration  from  common  superstitions  given  above 
shows  that  because  there  seems  to  be  a  possible  connection 
between  two  phenomena,  it  need  not  exist.  That  if  a  con- 
nection does  exist  between  two  phenomena  it  is  not  neces- 
sarily causal,  the  illustration  in  regard  to  wealth  and  silver 
proves.  It  should  need  little  illustration  to  show  that  very 
few  phenomena  result  from  one  cause.  Battles  have  doubt- 
less been  won  simply  by  the  splendid  fighting  of  the  men 
on  one  side,  but  far  more  often  several  reasons  have  com- 
bined to  produce  the  victory,  —  the  superior  strategy  of 
one  general,  the  better  training  of  his  men,  the  failure  of 
ammunition  among  some  of  the  opposing  troops,  etc.  Were 
the  intermingling,  the  complexity  of  causes  less,  we  should 
not  have  so  many  different  opinions  as  to  historical  events 
and  their  causes.  In  the  case  of  the  lost  dogs  it  is  possible 
that  the  desire  to  sell  dogs  to  vivisectors  caused  some  men 
to  steal,  but  the  carelessness  of  masters,  the  vagrant  tend- 
ency of  dogs,  a  half-dozen  causes  doubtless  underlay  the 
disappearances.  Moreover,  since  the  disappearance  of  the 


NON  SEQUITUR  157 

dogs  went  on  at  about  the  same  rate  even  when  the  papers 
were  full  of  outcries  against  the  vivisectors,  it  is  possible 
that  though  the  first  cause  had  been  at  work,  fear  for  a 
time  deterred  the  thieves  from  taking  the  dogs,  while  the 
other  causes  held  good.  That  is,  it  is  very  possible  that 
of  the  illustrations  given  in  the  newspaper  not  one  resulted 
from  the  cause  assigned.  In  the  complexity  of  causes,  then, 
at  work  to  produce  or  to  prevent  a  particular  act,  the  cause 
fastened  upon  by  an  observer  may  have  been  counteracted 
and  be  really  not  a  cause  at  all. 

In  considering  the  theories  of  historians,  economists, 
politicians,  a  student  should  keep  constantly  in  mind  the 
complexity,  the  multiplicity  of  causes  behind  events,  and 
be  on  his  guard  for  the  fallacy  just  considered.  When 
causes  for  results  are  assigned,  readers  should  be  made  to 
see  that  (1)  there  is  a  necessary  connection  between  the 
result  and  the  assigned  causes,  and  that  (2)  the  causes  are 
by  themselves  sufficient  to  produce  the  result  in  question. 
Unless  this  is  done,  evidently  two  matters  that  must  be 
settled  before  discussion  can  be  continued  are  left  without 
proof. 

,,  J}on  sequitur.  A  third  class  of  the  fallacies  of  reasoning 
consistT^Tconclusions  that  are  illogically  drawn  from  the 
facts  or  premises.  In  this  fallacy,  often  technically  called 
Non  Sequitur,  the  difficulty  lies  not  in  the  facts  or  premises 
themselves,  as  hitherto,  nor  in  the  conclusion  in  itself,  but 
in  the  illegitimate  inference  from  one  to  the  other.  "  All 
men  are  mortal,  Xanthippe  is  a  woman,  therefore  Xanthippe 
is  mortal "  is,  so  far  as  its  form  of  expression  goes,  a  non 
sequitur,  for  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  women  are  really 
included  in  the  term  "  men ''  as  used  in  the  first  premise. 
Until  the  form  of  statement  in  the  first  premise  is  changed, 


158  EVIDENCE 

therefore,  the  conclusion  is  not  a  legitimate  inference  from 
the  given  premises.  Likewise  it  is  a  non  sequitur  to  argue 
that  because  all  criminals  are  a  menace  to  society,  and  some 
immigrants  are  criminal,  therefore  all  immigrants  are  a 
menace  to  society.  To  prove  something  true  of  one  or 
two  members  of  a  class  and  therefrom  assume  that  it  is 
true  of  the  whole  class  is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  a  non  sequitur. 
Obviously,  many  of  the  fallacies  already  cited  are  them- 
selves the  result  of  non  sequitur.  There  is  one  distinct 
form,  however,  against  which  the  student  should  be  espe- 
cially on  his  guard.  It  is  always  fallacious  to  assume  that 
because  one  of  the  statements  (premises)  from  which  a  man 
draws  his  conclusion  is  clearly  false  or  true  his  conclusion 
is  necessarily  false  or  true,  or  to  assume  that  because  the 
conclusion  is  false  or  correct  a  premise  is.  Between  a 
premise  and  its  conclusion  may  lie  so  many  opportunities 
for  error  that  it  is  unsafe  to  assume  anything  about  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  the  one  from  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
other.  Only  when  examination  has  shown  that  a  premise 
is  correct,  and  that  a  conclusion  is  the  necessary  conse- 
quence from  its  premises,  should  statements  be  made  about 
their  truth  or  falsity  and  their  relations  to  one  another. 
Much  of  the  firm  adherence  of  each  religious  sect  to  its 
particular  ideas  rests  on  its  knowledge  that  though  it 
holds  different  views  from  other  sects  it  bases  its  conclu- 
sions on  premises  common  to  and  admitted  by  all.  Each 
sect  assumes,  however,  that  since  a  premise  of  its  argu- 
ment is  correct  the  conclusion  must  be  also.  This  fallacy 
underlies  much  charitable  work.  People  have  too  often 
believed  that  because  some  charitable  scheme  was  based 
on  the  unimpeachable  premise,  "We  should  aid  the  poor 
and  needy  in  times  of  trial,"  their  particular  scheme,  their 


IGNORING  THE  QUESTION  159 

conclusion  from  the  premises,  should  be  carried  out.  It  is, 
however,  no  uncommon  experience  for  a  man  to  hold  an 
absurd  opinion  which  he  has  drawn  from  entirely  correct 
premises,  or  a  perfectly  correct  opinion  drawn  from  absurd 
premises.  That  is,  his  argument  is  a  non  sequitur.  A  writer 
should  be  content  in  such  cases  simply  to  point  out  that 
the  conclusion  does  not  follow  from  the  premises  or  that 
one  or  more  of  the  premises  are  incorrect.  By  merely 
pointing  out  the  fallacy  in  his  opponent's  work,  he  renders 
it  worthless,  and  avoids  slipping  himself,  from  excess  of 
zeal,  into  the  fallacy  just  mentioned. 

Ignoring  the  question.  A  fourth  kind  of  fallacy  and  '• 
one  that  has  several  subdivisions  is  Ignoring  the  Question, 
Ignoratio  Elenchi.  In  this  a  writer,  either  intentionally  or 
by  mistake,  discusses  not  the  real  but  an  allied  or  entirely 
disconnected  question.  For  instance,  a  recent  topic  for 
forensics  read :  "  Was  General  Winslow's  treatment  of  the 
Acadians  justifiable?  "  A  large  number  of  students  wrote 
careful  arguments  to  prove  that  the  English  were  justified 
in  removing  the  Acadians  from  their  homes.  The  question 
had  been  carefully  worded  to  exclude  discussion  of  this 
practically  settled  matter,  and  to  suggest  consideration  of 
the  justifiability  of  the  details  of  Winslow's  treatment  of 
the  Acadians  when  carrying  out  the  general  order  for 
their  removal.  Another  topic  was,  "Should  Japan  be 
given  equal  treaty  rights  with  the  great  civilized  nations?" 
Many  students  argued  to  prove  that  it  would  be  best  for 
civilization  if  Japan  should  win  in  the  war  with  China. 

In  the  following  extract  Macaulay  points  out  what  he 
holds  to  be  a  very  widespread  use  of  this  fallacy. 

The  advocates  of  Charles,  like  the  advocates  of  other  male- 
factors against  whom  overwhelming  evidence  is    produced, 


160  EVIDENCE 

generally  decline  all  controversy  about  the  facts,  and  content 
themselves  with  calling  testimony  to  character.  .  .  . 

And  what,  after  all,  are  the  virtues  ascribed  to  Charles? 
A  religious  zeal  .  .  .  and  a  few  of  the  ordinary  household 
decencies  which  half  the  tombstones  in  England  claim  for 
those  who  lie  beneath  them.  A  good  father !  A  good  hus- 
band !  Ample  apologies  indeed  for  fifteen  years  of  persecution, 
tyranny  and  falsehood ! 

We  charge  him  with  having  broken  his  coronation  oath; 
and  we  are  told  that  he  kept  his  marriage  vow !  We  accuse 
him  of  having  given  up  his  people  to  the  merciless  inflictions 
of  the  most  hot-headed  and  hard-liearted  of  prelates  ;  and  the 
defence  is,  that  he  took  his  little  son  on  his  knees  and  kissed 
him  !  We  censure  him  for  having  violated  the  articles  of  the 
Petition  of  Rights,  after  having,  for  good  and  valuable  con- 
sideration, promised  to  observe  them;  and  we  are  informed 
that  he  was  accustomed  to  hear  prayers  at  six  o'clock  in  the 
morning !  .  .  . 

We  cannot  in  estimating  the  character  of  an  individual  leave 
out  of  our  consideration  his  conduct  in  the  most  important  of 
all  human  relations;  and  if  in  that  relation  we  find  him  self- 
ish, cruel,  and  deceitful,  we  shall  take  the  liberty  to  call  him 
a  bad  man,  in  spite  of  all  his  temperance  at  table,  and  all 
his  regularity  at  chapel. 

J\  Shifting  ground.  Another  form  of  ignoring  the  question 
is  the  very  exasperating  fallacy,  Shifting  Ground.  In  this 
a  writer,  when  pressed  hard,  shifts  from  the  original  thesis. 
he  started  to  support ;  and  when  pressed  hard  in  his  new 
position,  shifts  to  still  a  third.  Usually  the  different  theses 
are  so  closely  allied,  so  strongly  resemble  one  another,  that 
the  shifting  is  not  easily  seen,  and  the  writer  may,  by  prov- 
ing something  true  of  one  of  his  theses  which  he  could  by 
no  means  prove  true  of  the  original  question,  seem  to  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  the  original  thesis.  Many  of  the  chance 


ARGUING  FROM  PART  TO  WHOLE  161 

arguments  one  hears  on  English  composition  as  a  prescribed 
part  of  a  college  course  illustrate  this  fallacy.  An  English 
instructor  is  told :  "  You  should  not  force  students  to  study 
English  composition.  You  have  a  subject  which  cannot  be 
taught.  To  write  well  is  a  God-given  power."  When  the 
instructor  shows  that  the  critic  is  here  making  no  distinc- 
tion between  inborn  literary  genius  that  may  express  itself 
forcibly,  though  crudely,  without  training,  and  instruction 
in  correct  usage,  in  force,  clearness,  and  elegance,  the  critic 
says,  shifting  his  ground  slightly :  "  But  you  know  a  stu- 
dent can  just  as  well  pick  up  style  from  contact  with  good 
books,  by  browsing  in  a  fine  library."  When  he  is  shown 
that  such  an  opportunity  is  rare,  and  that  there  are  serious 
objections  to  such  a  method,  he  answers :  "  I  feel  sure  that 
method  is  the  best,  for  some  boys  cannot  learn  to  write 
well."  When  the  instructor  points  out  that,  though  this 
is  true  of  a  very  small  number,  most  boys  can  learn  to 
write  well,  and  that  many,  under  the  system  of  prescribed 
English,  do  become  proficient  who  otherwise  would  not 
learn,  his  opponent  answers :  "  Yes,  that  is,  those  who  have 
the  inborn  power,  though  they  were  not  aware  of  it."  By 
this  the  critic  triumphantly  reverts  to  his  original  position, 
shifting  his  ground  a  third  time.  Clearly,  such  work  as 
this  ignores  the  real  question  for  discussion,  constantly 
substituting  for  it  another  topic  very  similar,  but  not  the 
same. 

Proving  something  true  of  a  part  only,  not  of  the  whole. 
Still  another  phase  of  ignoring  the  question  is  proving^ 
something  true  of  a  part  when  it  should  be  proved  true  of 
the  whole,  as  in  the  case  of  the  man  who  said,  "  You  will 
never  find  a  Quaker  who  is  a  thief,  for  I  have  known  many 
and  all  are  honest."  The  topic,  "  Should  the  Australian 


162  EVIDENCE 

Ballot  System  be  adopted  in  the  United  States?  "  has  given 
instances  of  this  fallacy.  Many  students,  after  considering 
advantages  to  be  expected  from  it,  and  overcoming  objec- 
tions to  it,  decided  that  the  system  should  be  adopted. 
What  interfered  with  the  conclusiveness  of  their  opinions 
was  that  each  student  wrote  only  of  those  political  con- 
ditions which  he  knew  best.  The  New  Englander,  the 
Ohioan,  forgot  that  New  England,  the  Middle  States,  the 
South,  the  Northwest,  the  Pacific  Slope,  all  have  different 
political  problems  which  the  system  of  balloting  affects. 
After  proving,  not  that  the  differing  needs  in  all  these 
sections  would  be  met  better  by  the  new  than  by  the  old 
system,  but  that  the  section  best  known  to  them  would 
be  benefited,  they  stated  their  conclusion  as  holding  good 
for  the  whole  country.  Their  conclusion,  if  it  wras  not  to 
be  fallacious,  should  have  read,  not  "  The  system  would 
be  beneficial  to  the  United  States,"  but  "The  system  would 
be  beneficial  to  New  England,  or  to  the  New  England  and 
the  Middle  States."  It  is  clearly  no  less  a  fallacy  to  state 
as  true  of  a  part  what  is  true  of  the  whole,  but  not  neces- 
sarily true  of  every  part  of  the  whole.  This  fallacy  is 
committed  when  it  is  argued  that  railroad  magnates  are 
the  richest  men  in  the  country  and  that  John  Smith  must 
be  very  wealthy  because  he  is  a  railroad  magnate.  In  the 
following  chain  of  reasoning  the  fallacy  occurs  three  times 
before  the  conclusion  is  drawn,  even  if  statements  1-4  are 
accepted  as  correct. 

1.  New   York   is   the  most   fertile    state   in   the   United 
States. 

2.  Cayuga  County  is  the  most  fertile  county  in  New  York 
State. 

3.  Ledyard  is  the  most  fertile  town  in  Cayuga  County. 


THE  ARGUMENTUM  AD  HOMINEM  163 

4.  My  farm  is  the  most  fertile  farm  in  Ledyard. 

5.  Therefore  my  farm  is  the  most  fertile  farm  in  the  United 
States. 

The  fallacious  use  of  the  argumentum  ad  hominem.  An- 
other form  of  this  fallacy  closely  allied  to  the  last  is  the 
improper  use  of  the  so-called  Argumentum  ad  Hominem. 
This  argument  "  is  addressed  to  the  peculiar  circumstances, 
character,  avowed  opinions,  or  past  conduct  of  the  individ- 
ual, and  therefore  has  a  reference  to  him  only,  and  does 
not  bear  directly  and  absolutely  on  the  real  question."  1 
That  is,  not  the  tightness  or  the  wrongness  of  the  issue  is 
proved,  but  its  tightness  or  wrongness  for  one  individual, 
or  those  only  among  men  whose  circumstances,  character, 
past  conduct,  or  avowed  opinions  are  like  his.  The  fallacy 
comes  in  using  this  argument  which  can  be  convincing 
only  for  this  small  class  of  men  as  if  it  must  be  convincing 
for  humanity  in  general.  For  instance,  most  of  our  appeals 
to  friends  to  be  consistent  in  their  actions  are  argumenta 
ad  hominem.  A  friend  has,  for  example,  turned  away  a 
beggar  from  his  door,  and  we  urge  that  he  should  have 
given  in  this  case  because  we  have  never  seen  him  refuse 
alms  before,  and  have  heard  him  say  repeatedly  that  a 
man  who  has  enough,  as  he  admittedly  has,  should  always 
be  willing  to  spare  a  little  to  the  needy.  Another  friend 
has  often  declared  in  our  presence  that  our  system  of  free 
public  schools  is  the  strength  of  the  nation,  and  that  every 
citizen  should  give  it  all  possible  support.  When,  how- 
ever, his  child  reaches  the  age  for  entering  the  grammar 
school  he  sends  him  to  a  private  school.  We  tax  him  with 
inconsistency,  and  use  the  argumentum  ad  hominem.  It  is 

1  Elements  of  Logic.    Whately.    p.  237. 


164  EVIDENCE 

by  an  argumentum  ad  hominem  that  the  Signorina  Nugent, 
in  the  last  sentence  but  one  of  the  following,  gets  the  better 
of  Mr.  Martin  :  — 

She  said  nothing,  but  stood  there,  biting  the  rose. 

"  Give  it  to  me,"  I  said ;  "  it  shall  be  my  badge  of 
service." 

"You  will  serve  me,  then?"  said  she. 

"  For  what  reward  ?" 

"  Why,  the  rose  ! " 

"  I  should  like  the  owner,  too,"  I  ventured  to  remark. 

"  The  rose  is  prettier  than  the  owner,"  she  said  ;  "  and,  at 
any  rate,  one  thing  at  a  time,  Mr.  Martin !  Do  you  pay  your 
servants  all  their  wages  in  advance  ?  " 

My  practice  was  so  much  the  contrary  that  I  really  could  n't 
deny  the  force  of  her  reasoning.1 

In  all  these  cases  the  argumentum  ad  hominem  has  been 
correctly  used.  If,  however,  the  successful  arguer  in  any 
one  of  the  cases  given  should  assume  not  that  he  has  proved 
that  his  friend  should  give  to  all  beggars,  but  that  beggars 
should  always  be  given  aid ;  or,  not  that  the  friend  should 
send  his  child  to  the  public  schools,  but  that  all  good  citi- 
zens should  send  their  children  to  the  public  schools ;  or, 
not  that  Martin  should  not  expect  a  full  reward  till  his 
service  had  been  done,  but  that  no  one  should  expect  a  full 
reward  till  his  service  is  done,  —  that  is,  if  he  attempts  to 
make  a  universal  application  of  an  argument  that  has  force 
only  for  a  special  case,  —  he  thereby  falls  into  the  fallacy 
now  under  discussion.  Evidently,  doing  this,  he  fails  to 
see  what  is  the  work  he  should  do,  —  establish  the  general 
truth  of  the  principle,  not  its  applicability  in  a  special  case, 
—  and  so  ignores  the  question. 

i  A  Man  of  Mark.    Anthony  Hope.    pp.  46,  47.    H.  Holt  &  Co.     1896. 


THE  FALLACY  OF  OBJECTIONS  165 

The  argumentum  ad  populum  is  a  form  of  ignoring  the 
question  closely  allied  to  the  argumentum  ad  hominem.  In 
this  argument  a  speaker  uses  before  a  given  audience  a 
statement  which  he  knows  they  will  heartily  agree  to  on 
account  of  their  special  prejudices  and  partisan  views,  but 
which  would  be  vigorously  challenged  elsewhere.  A  stu- 
dent should  clearly  recognize  that  this  is  only  legitimate 
within  certain  limits  and  that  this  method  of  argument  is 
fallacious  when  it  assumes  ibo  prove  the  matter  true  for 
all  men. 

The  fallacy  of  objections.  Still  another  form  of  ignoring 
the  question  is  to  raise  objections  of  any  kind  to  a  plan, 
theory,  or  system,  and  then  to  infer  that  it  must  be  rejected. 
When,  however,  objections  are  raised  two  important  ques- 
tions at  once  arise :  (1)  Are  the  objections  raised  essentially 
connected  with  the  point  in  question?  (2)  Granted  that 
in  nearly  all  cases  there  must  be  both  advantages  and  dis- 
advantages, do  the  objections  in  this  case  outweigh  the 
advantages  ?  It  is  not,  for  instance,  difficult  to  point  out, 
in  cases  where  the  argument  from  resemblance  is  used, 
some  differences  between  the  two  or  more  cases  in  ques- 
tion, but  unless  the  cases  differ  in  something  that  was  an 
essential  part  of  the  process  producing  the  result  in  ques- 
tion, the  objection  can  have  no  force.  There  have  been  few 
plans  and  systems,  even  if  the  great  legislative  measures, 
political  acts,  and  humanitarian  movements  be  included, 
to  which  valid  objections  could  not  be  raised.  There  has, 
for  instance,  been  much  discussion  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which  enfran- 
chised the  negro.  It  is  not  difficult  to  point  out  ways  in 
which  it  works  badly.  No  doubt  in  ante-bellum  days  men 
were  right  in  saying  that  there  were  strong  objections  to 


166  EVIDENCE 

the  theories  of  the  abolitionists.  In  treating  the  topic, 
"  Should  the  Australian  Ballot  System  be  adopted  in  the 
United  States?"  it  is  easy  to  point  out  real  objections  to  it. 
Those  who  argue  fallaciously  on  the  subjects  just  mentioned 
decide  that  because  they  have  shown  real  objections  to  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  to  Abolition,  to  the  Australian 
Ballot  System,  therefore  the  plans  should  not  be  adopted. 
They  ignore  the  real  question :  Do  the  valid  objections 
outweigh  the  proved  advantages  ?  Unless,  then,  an  argu- 
ment from  objections  can  stand  the  two  tests  mentioned,  it 
must  fall. 

Summary.  A  student  must  see,  therefore,  that  a  fallacy 
springs  from  one  of  three  sources:  (1)  lack  of  definition, 
(2)  non-observation  and  erroneous  observation,  (3)  errone- 
ous reasoning.  Lack  of  definition  results  in  equivocation, 
ambiguity,  and  confusion  of  various  sorts.  Non-observation 
and  erroneous  observation  result  in  errors  due  to  inatten- 
tion or  to  preconceived  theory,  in  the  neglect  of  significant 
circumstances,  and  in  the  confusion  of  an  incorrect  infer- 
ence with  a  direct  sense  impression.  Erroneous  reasoning 
results  in  hasty  generalization ;  in  begging  the  question, 
whether  from  arguing  in  a  circle  or  assertion  in  one  or 
more  of  its  many  forms,  —  false  assumption,  ambiguous^ 
evidence,  simple  assertion,  or  the  unwarranted  assumption 
of  a  causal  relationship;  in  non  sequitur;  and  in  ignor- 
ing the  question,  directly,  or  indirectly  by  proving  some- 
thing true  of  a  part  when  the  whole  should  be  considered, 
by  fallacious  use  of  the  argumentum  ad  hominem,  by  shift- 
ing ground,  or  by  raising  irrelevant  or  insignificant  objec- 
tions that  do  not  outweigh  the  proved  advantages.  Against 
all  these  fallacies  the  careful  arguer  must  be  continually 
on  his  guard. 


ANALYSIS   THE   GREAT  FOE   OF  FALLACY       167 

A  further  subdivision  of  fallacies  not  necessary  here.  The 
three  main  possible  sources  of  fallacy — ambiguous  or  incor- 
rect uses  of  words,  erroneous  observation,  and  bad  reason- 
ing—  should  be  carefully  kept  in  mind  by  a  student  of 
argumentation.  Little  by  little  he  will  recognize,  in  his 
work  of  sifting  evidence,  the  divisions  of  these  three  already 
explained.  Very  probably  he  will  find  other  divisions  and 
subdivisions,  but  these  are  so  unimportant,  if  the  main  divi- 
sions are  clearly  recognized,  that  it  has  not  seemed  wise  to 
do  more  here  than  show  the  most  common  aspects  of  the 
big  divisions.  Moreover,  the  divisions  of  fallacies  run  into 
one  another,  and  it  is  often  difficult  to  say  that  a  fallacy 
belongs  more  to  one  class  than  to  another.  For  instance., 
the  man  who  argued  against  prescribed  English  composi- 
tion (p.  161)  not  only  shifted  his  ground  but  argued  in  a 
circle.  Let  a  student  remember,  therefore,  that  what  has 
been  said  has  been  given,  not  for  the  purpose  of  helping 
him  to  classify  definitively  every  fallacy  he  sees,  but  merely 
to  help  him  to  recognize  unsound  modes  of  reasoning.  If 
he  can  place  an  argument  in  any  one  of  the  classes  of  fal- 
lacies, that  should  be  enough,  for  he  has  disposed  of  it.  If 
—  to  use  the  example  of  the  critic  of  prescribed  English 
composition  —  he  recognizes  first  the  shifting  ground,  let 
him  throw  out  the  argument  as  that  kind  of  fallacy.  If 
he  sees  first  the  circular  argument,  let  him  put  aside  the 
argument  on  that  ground.  Whether  it  is  more  one  than 
the  other  need  trouble  logicians  only. 

Analysis  the  great  foe  of  fallacy.  If  fallacies  were  as 
directly  and  simply  stated  in  all  cases  as,  for  the  sake  of 
clearness,  they  have  been  in  the  above  illustrations,  they 
would  not  be  difficult  to  remove.  As  has  been  said,  how- 
ever, they  hide  themselves  away  in  a  mass  of  other  matter 


168  EVIDENCE 

that  may  be  wholly  true,  and,  thus  imbedded,  they  are  dif 
ficult  to  recognize.  The  simplest  method  of  finding  them 
is  to  cut  the  long  argument  down  to  its  simplest  propor- 
tions, to  find  just  what  its  main  thesis  is,  and  on  what  sub- 
ordinate theses  that  rests.  That  is  what  was  done  in  nearly 
all  the  illustrations  given  from  the  work  of  college  students. 
But  what  is  this  except  analysis  —  "  the  exclusion  of  ideas 
for  a  central  idea  or  group  of  ideas"?  Analysis  is  the 
preventive  or  the  destroyer  of  fallacies,  for  let  a  reader 
cut  an  argument  down  to  its  simplest  proportions  —  that 
is,  make  a  brief  of  it — and  he  will  find  very  shortly  whether 
there  is  any  fallacy  in  it.  Surely  the  importance  of  analysis 
in  argumentation  must  once  more  be  evident. 

Presentation  follows  investigation.  It  is  not  enough, 
however,  to  distinguish  good  from  bad  evidence ;  one  must 
be  able  to  present  well  the  evidence  selected.  Indeed,  one 
part  of  presenting  evidence,  handling  it  in  relation  to  the 
case  of  one's  opponent,  Refutation,  may  best  be  considered 
by  a  student  before  he  proceeds  to  brief-drawing,  for  any 
brief,  to  be  adequate,  must  present  the  writer's  case  in 
relation  to  the  case  of  his  opponent. 

SECTION  5  —  REFUTATION 

Refutation  essential  but  complementary.  Refutation  is  of 
two  kicds :  general  refutation,  the  reply  that  a  writer  makes 
to  direct  attack  on  the  main  proposition;  special  refuta- 
tion, the  reply  to  actual  or  possible  objections  to  details 
of  proof.  Refutation  can  hardly  be  mastered  early  in  study 
of  argumentation, for  its  effectiveness  depends  on  a  thorough 
understanding  of  the  principles  of  analysis  and  evidence 
already  explained,  somewhat  on  the  principles  of  structure 
and  presentation  yet  to  be  treated,  and  on  much  practice. 


KEFUTATION  ESSENTIAL  BUT  COMPLEMENTARY    169 

Students  usually  wholly  neglect  it  at  first,  contenting  them- 
selves with  a  statement  of  their  own  ideas  more  or  less 
adequately  supported  with  evidence,  but  entirely  ignoring 
any  opposing  views  as  to  the  main  proposition  or  minor 
ideas.  Later,  when  the  importance  of  refutation  in  argu- 
mentation is  recognized,  these  same  students  overestimate 
it,  developing  their  cases  as  if  the  one  aim  in  discussion 
should  be,  not  ascertaining  the  truth  about  a  mooted  mat- 
ter, but  merely  breaking  down  the  case  of  an  opponent. 
For  two  reasons,  however,  this  ignoring  of  the  need  of  a 
positive  case  of  one's  own  is  as  futile  as  the  original  ignor- 
ing of  any  case  but  one's  own.  In  the  first  place,  except 
when  it  has  been  conclusively  shown  that  only  a  certain 
number  of  theories  or  statements  are  possible  in  regard  to 
the  matter  under  discussion  and  all  but  one  have  been 
refuted,  refutation  is  purely  destructive,  and  does  not 
prove  anything  true  or  to  exist.  In  all  cases  but  that 
excepted  it  merely  clears  the  ground  for  proof  of  the  truth 
of  a  different  theory.  In  the  exception  named,  when  it 
has  been  shown  that  all  possible  theories  but  one  do  not 
hold,  a  strong  presumption  at  least  has  been  established  in 
favor  of  that  one.  So  difficult  is  it,  however,  to  be  sure 
that  all  possible  explanations  of  a  phenomenon,  all  the  the- 
ories in  regard  to  it,  have  been  named,  that  careful  workers 
—  for  example  Professor  Huxley  in  his  First  Lecture  on 
Evolution  —  are  usually  not  content  with  this  strong  pre- 
,  sumption,  but  go  on  to  show  why  their  theory  or  plan 
should  be  adopted.  Professor  Huxley,  after  stating  the 
three  hypotheses  which  have  been  advanced  as  to  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  refuted  two,  and  then  devoted  a  second 
and  a  third  lecture  to  showing  the  agreement  between 
circumstantial  evidence  and  the  third  theory. 


170  EVIDENCE 

The  second  reason  why  ignoring  the  need  of  a  positive 
contrasting  case  is  futile  is  that  in  most  topics  widely  dis- 
cussed neither  side  is  wholly  in  the  right,  .and  judgment 
must  be  rendered  on  the  comparative  merits  of  two  or 
more  contrasted  schemes  or  theories.  For  instance,  we  do 
not  discuss:  "Is  the  Elective  System  unsound?"  but  "Is 
the  Elective  System  less  sound  than  the  Group  System 
or  than  a  prescribed  course  of  study?  "  Recently  we  did 
not  consider  simply :  "  Should  the  United  States  build  a 
canal  across  Panama? "but  "Is  the  Panama  route  prefer- 
able to  the  Nicaragua  route  for  the  proposed  canal  ?  "  The 
larger  part  of  legislative  discussion  is  of  this  comparative 
kind. 

Ignoring  the  comparative  nature  of  a  case  should  be 
impossible  if  the  question  is  phrased  after  a  careful  analysis 
has  produced  the  special  issues,  for  they  must  make  clear 
the  really  comparative  nature  of  the  discussion.1 

1  In  a  recent  college  debate  on  "  Should  immigration  from  Southeastern 
Europe  be  further  restricted?  "  the  affirmative  maintained  that  it  should 
because  many  who  become  diseased  or  paupers,  or  who  are  criminals,  are 
let  in,  and  that  present  laws,  even  if  rigidly  enforced,  cannot  shut  out 
the  undesirable.  The  negative  contended  that  immigration  laws,  no  mat- 
ter how  restricted,  must  let  in  persons  who  after  their  coming  to  this 
country  will  become  undesirable,  alleging  that  conditions  in  the  slums 
are  responsible  for  a  change  for  the  worse  and  that  better  citizenship  can- 
not be  hoped  for  till  we  improve  the  tenement-house  conditions.  The 
negative  seemed,  however,  to  think  that  it  was  enough  to  prove  incorrect 
the  contention  of  the  affirmative  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  many  immi- 
grants on  landing  and  merely  to  state  its  theory  as  to  the  effect  of  the  tene- 
ments. Of  course,  it  had  on  it,  from  its  interpretation  of  the  question,* 
the  burden  of  a  constructive  case,  —  to  show  the  truth  of  its  theory.  If 
this  is  not  clear,  consider  the  position  of  the  negative,  had  the  affirmative, 
after  hearing  the  interpretation  put  upon  the  question  by  the  negative, 
said  :  ' '  We  grant,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  your  contention  that  it  is 
conditions  in  the  tenements  rather  than  inherent  and  well-developed 
traits  of  character  evident  when  the  immigrants  land  which  are  responsi- 
ble, but  insist  that  if  we  greatly  restrict  immigration  we  shall  have  none  of 


FIRST  ESSENTIAL  OF  GOOD  REFUTATION       171 

The  first  essential  of  good  refutation  —  preparedness.    For 

strong  refutation  such  analysis  as  has  been  already  explained 
is  essential.  To  refute  well  one  must  understand  not  only 
one's  own  case,  but  the  whole  case :  —  what  one  thinks 
about  it;  what  one's  opponent  has  said  about  it;  what 
other  people  have  said  or  written  about  it  of  which  the 
opponent  may  have  informed  himself  since  he  last  wrote. 
Usually  what  an  opponent  is  likely  to  say  in  answer  to 
an  article  offers  not  one  but  many  possibilities.  He  is  not 
likely  to  say  all  that  one  can  find  for  his  case  or  against 
one's  own,  but  in  order  to  be  able  to  meet  the  little  he 
chooses  to  say  one  must  know  how  to  meet  anything  he 
may  say.  The  first  principle  of  refutation  is,  then :  Know 
all  the  ramifications  of  the  discussion  in  which  you  take 
part.  Preparedness  on  both  sides  of  the  case  is  the  first 
essential  of  strong  refutation.  Recently,  after  an  inter- 
collegiate debate  in  which  the  negative  had  won  easily, 
the  six  contestants  were  overheard  in  amicable  reconsider- 
ation of  the  question.  The  speakers  on  the  negative  were 
expressing  surprise  that  the  affirmative  had  chosen  what 
seemed  to  the  negative  by  no  means  their  strongest  possi- 
ble case.  As  two  or  three  other  plans  for  presenting  the 
question  were  outlined  by  the  negative,  an  affirmative 
speaker  said :  "  Why,  we  never  thought  of  those  plans ; 
ours  seemed  to  us  the  only  interpretation.  It 's  a  pity  we 
did  n't  see  our  chance  with  one  of  your  plans,  for  then  we 
should  have  had  you."  "  Not  at  all,"  cried  one  of  his 

these  people  to  develop  under  undesirable  tenement  conditions. "  Had  the 
opponents  met  and  sifted  the  material  on  their  question  to  the  real  issues, 
they  would  probably  have  rephrased  their  question  in  comparative  form, 
for  instance  :  "  Are  large  numbers  of  the  immigrants  from  Southeastern 
Europe  undesirable  at  landing  or  do  they  become  undesirable  from  con- 
ditions in  the  great  cities  ?  " 


172  EVIDENCE 

opponents,  rapidly  outlining  an  intended  plan  of  refuta- 
tion in  each  case.  "  Well,"  exclaimed  another  affirmative 
speaker,  "I  guess  you  had  us  beaten  before  we  came  on 
that  platform ! "  He  was  right,  for  it  was  this  superior 
preparedness  which  had  given  the  negative  speakers  their 
victory.  Such  superiority,  however,  is  not  often  possible, 
but  one  may  often  know  as  well  as  one's  opponent  the 
possible  cases  for  his  side.  It  is  in  guessing  which  case 
he  will  choose  and  where  in  that  case  he  will  place  his 
emphasis  that  uncertainty  arises. 

Importance  of  analysis  in  refutation.  This  prepared- 
ness rests  on  analysis.  We  refute  under  two  conditions: 
we  may  try  to  forestall  objections  which  we  think  will 
be  made,  anticipatory  rebuttal ;  we  may  answer  objec- 
tions already  made.  The  simplest  form  of  anticipatory 
rebuttal  is  when  one  is  proposing  some  plan  so  new  that 
the  objections  to  it  can  only  be  guessed  at.  Evidently 
only  the  really  obvious  objections,  general  and  special, 
should  be  taken  up,  for  we  must  be  careful  until  pos- 
sible opposers  of  the  scheme  have  been  heard  from  not 
to  provide  our  enemy  with  ammunition  or  to  give  him  a 
chance  to  make  a  point  by  granting  the  larger  part  of  what 
we  have  contended  for  in  rebuttal,  throwing  his  emphasis 
on  other  ideas,  or  wholly  on  one  or  two  only  of  the  ideas 
which  we  have  tried  to  refute.  Imagine  some  politician, 
in  1792,  when  controversy  was  rife  on  assumption  of  the 
state  debts  by  the  United  States,  assuming  that  Hamil- 
ton's motive  for  advocating  such  action  was  to  square  the 
accounts  outstanding  among  the  individual  states,  and 
proving  by  elaborate  figures  that  this  object  could  have 
been  more  cheaply  and  more  thoroughly  accomplished. 
A  supporter  of  Hamilton  replies  that  he  grants  all  this, 


IMPORTANCE  OF  ANALYSIS  IN  REFUTATION     173 

but  urges  assumption  on  the  ground  —  that  really  urged 
by  Hamilton  —  of  making  the  Union  stronger.  The  first 
speaker  has  not  only  wasted  time  but  has  revealed  his 
unpreparedness  on  his  topic.  Even  when  we  reply  to  an 
article  which  is  supposed  to  embody  the  ideas  of  our  oppo- 
nent, it  is  possible  that  additional  objections  in  his  behalf 
which  have  been  elsewhere  printed  or  which  have  suggested 
themselves  to  us  have  now  become  his  also,  and,  if  he  is  to 
have  a  chance  to  reply  we  must  anticipate  as  many  of  these 
objections  as  may  seem  wise.  But  how  are  we  to  deter- 
mine what  the  objections  to  be  anticipated  are  except  by 
analysis  ?  Moreover,  when  we  reply  to  an  opponent,  analy- 
sis shows  us  just  what  is  his  case ;  whether  he  represents 
our  views  correctly ;  whether  he  meets  us  squarely ;  whether 
he  tries  to  force  in  matter  not  really  needed ;  just  where 
the  two  cases  touch  or  miss  each  other;  whether  his  case 
can  be  reduced  to  a  few  clear  statements  at  which  we  can 
strike  ;  and  the  value  of  these  statements  or  of  the  broader 
case  if  it  cannot  be  simplified. 

When  Jeremy  Collier,  in  1698,  attacked  the  plays  of 
his  day  in  A  Short  View  of  the  Immorality  and  the  Pro- 
faneness  of  the  English  Stage,  he  urged  (1)  the  theater  of 
the  Ancients  was  not  dishonorable ;  (2)  the  present  stage 
is  given  to  oaths ;  (3)  it  holds  the  clergy  up  to  ridicule ; 
(4)  it  is  immoral ;  (5)  there  are  general  unfavorable  criti- 
cisms to  be  made  on  it ;  and  (6)  the  testimony  of  the  Church 
Fathers  is  against  the  drama.  Though  the  book  provoked 
a  succession  of  answers,  one  and  all  were  ineffective, 
mainly  because  the  authors  did  not  take  the  trouble  to 
analyze  Collier's  somewhat  confused  presentation  of  his 
case  and  so  missed  its  real  nature.  Filmer,  for  instance, 
replied  by  proving  that  the  stage  of  the  Ancients  was 


174  EVIDENCE 

decidedly  objectionable ;  but  in  refuting  only  Collier's  first 
point,  proved  only  what  Collier  might  well  grant  and 
yet  rest  triumphantly  on  the  evidence  as  to  the  existing 
viciousness  of  the  stage.  Vanbrugh  in  his  reply  made 
some  corrections  of  details,  and  weakened  some  of  Collier's 
statements,  but  left  the  case  in  its  essentials  undisturbed. 
Dennis,  who  made  the  best  answer,  did  not  defend  the 
particular  plays  attacked  or  the  existing  stage,  but  depre- 
cated Collier's  exaggeration  and  the  effect  on  drama  in 
England  if  his  ideas  spread.  For  an  effective  reply,  the 
book  should  have  been  stripped  of  its  verbiage,  redun- 
dancy, and  extraneous  material.  Had  that  been  done,  the 
amount  left  requiring  serious  answer  must  have  been 
greatly  reduced.  From  these  illustrations  it  must  be  clear 
that  analysis  is  fundamental  in  the  first  essential  for  good 
refutation,  namely  preparedness. 

The  second  essential  of  good  refutation  —  selection.  Analy- 
sis, as  has  just  been  said,  makes  it  possible  to  reduce  an 
opponent's  case  to  its  simplest  proportions,  to  divest  it  of 
illustration  and  rhetoric,  to  grasp  the  real  subordination 
of  ideas  treated  by  him  as  of  primary  value,  to  seize  and 
hold  up  to  your  reader  what  is  central  in  your  opponent's 
case.  Not  everything  which  your  opponent  says  is  surely 
worth  answering,  probably  not  any  large  part  of  it.  Refu- 
tation is  not  a  Donnybrook  Fair  :  don't  hit  at  every  head 
you  see,  but  aim  at  the  leaders.  Just  as  in  reaching  the 
special  issue  we  grant,  admit,  waive,  and  exclude  as  extra- 
neous, we  may  take  part  or  all  of  these  steps  with  the  case 
of  our  opponent  when  it  is  before  us  and  by  subordinating 
what  is  less  important  in  it  strike  at  central  ideas.  By 
just  this  process  Demosthenes  in  his  oration  On  the  Crown 
selects  the  part  of  the  case  of  ^Eschines  to  which  he 


TWO  OTHER  ESSENTIALS  OF  GOOD  REFUTATION     175 

replies.1  In  the  discussion  of  the  Canteen  question  on 
p.  45  it  was  possible  to  grant  three  out  of  four  of  the  con- 
tentions of  the  affirmative  and  yet  make  a  stand  by  attack- 
ing the  fourth  idea  strongly.  But  select  not  only  in  your 
opponent's  case.  In  using  your  own  material,  do  not  waste 
time  in  marshaling  all  the  evidence  you  can  find  on  a  par- 
ticular objection.  Hit  it  as  hard  as  you  can  with  the  one 
or  more  pieces  of  evidence  necessary  for  your  effects ;  let 
all  other  evidence  on  the  point  go.  Don't  fling  battalions 
of  thought  at  your  enemy's  center  when  a  strong  company 
will  do. 

What  a  combination  of  analysis  and  selection  may  do 
for  a  case  is  shown  by  a  story  of  President  Lincoln  as  a 
lawyer.  Defending  a  client  against  the  charge  of  murder, 
he  made  the  jury  see  lhat  the  apparently  complicated  case 
against  the  accused  really  rested  for  its  conclusiveness  on 
the  testimony  of  one  witness.  He  had  testified  that  a  full 
moon  made  it  possible  for  him  to  see  the  fatal  blow.  Then, 
producing  an  almanac,  Lincoln  showed  that  on  the  night 
of  the  murder  there  was  no  moon. 

The  third  essential  of  good  refutation — emphasis.  This 
selection  must  not,  however,  be  arbitrary.  Too  often  a 
writer  merely  says  :  "  The  case  of  my  opponent  amounts 
to  this  "  or  "  In  the  case  of  my  opponent  we  may  waive 
all  except  his  third  point."  Never  forget  in  argumenta- 
tion that  you  must  carry  "  the  other  person  "  steadily  with 
you,  that  you  should  not  work  for  yourself  but  for  and 
with  your  audience.  When  you  select,  let  your  reader  or 
hearer  see  the  steps  by  which  you  cut  down  the  opposing 
case  and,  above  all,  your  right  so  to  cut  it.  Do  not  dictate  ; 
expound. 

1  See  pp.  201-203. 


176  EVIDENCE 

The  following  from  a  reply  to  an  educational  article  of 
President  Eliot  shows  a  well-emphasized  selection  of  the 
ideas  to  be  refuted. 

President  Eliot's  estimate  of  the  Jesuit  system  is  expressed 
in  the  following  passage  in  his  paper :  "  There  are  those  who 
say  that  there  should  be  no  election  of  studies  in  secondary 
schools.  .  .  .  This  is  precisely  the  method  followed  in  Mos- 
lem countries,  where  the  Koran  prescribes  the  perfect  educa- 
tion to  be  administered  to  all  children  alike.  The  prescription 
begins  in  the  primary  schools  and  extends  straight  through 
the  university;  and  almost  the  only  mental  power  cultivated 
is  memory.  Another  instance  of  uniform  prescribed  education 
may  be  found  in  the  curriculum  of  the  Jesuit  Colleges,  which 
has  remained  almost  unchanged  for  four  hundred  years,  disre- 
garding some  trifling  concessions  to  natural  sciences.  That 
these  examples  are  both  ecclesiastical*  is  not  without  signifi- 
cance. Nothing  but  an  unhesitating  belief  in  the  divine  wis- 
dom of  such  prescriptions  can  justify  them;  for  no  human 
wisdom  is  equal  to  contriving  a  prescribed  course  of  study 
equally  good  for  even  two  children  of  the  same  family  between 
the  ages  of  eight  and  eighteen.  Direct  revelation  from  on  high 
would  be  the  only  satisfactory  basis  for  a  uniform  prescribed 
school  curriculum.  The  immense  deepening  and  expanding 
of  human  knowledge  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  the  in- 
creasing sense  of  the  sanctity  of  the  individual's  gifts  and 
will-power  have  made  uniform  prescriptions  of  study  in  sec- 
ondary schools  impossible  and  absurd." 

Aside  from  the  derogatory  insinuations  contained  in  this 
passage,  the  average  reader  will  carry  away  from  the  perusal 
of  it  two  main  assertions  :  (1)  that  the  Jesuit  system  of  edu- 
cation implies  a  uniform  prescribed  curriculum  of  Moslem-like 
rigidity;  (2)  that  the  natural  disparity  of  the  individual  stu- 
dent in  gifts  and  will-power,  the  finite  wisdom  of  the  educator, 
and  the  increase  of  human  knowledge  are  such  as  to  necessi- 
tate the  widest  application  of  the  elective  system. 


EMPHASIS  IN  GOOD  REFUTATION  177 

The  first  proposition  enunciates  what  is  claimed  to  be  a  fact, 
the  second  asserts  a  theory.  These  propositions,  as  we  shall 
see,  are  extreme,  and  certainly  not  correlative.  The  negation 
of  one  does  not  infer  the  other.  But  in  the  truth  of  either  the 
Jesuit  system  is  condemned,  not  necessarily  as  a  system  of 
education,  but  as  a  system  adapted  to  modern  requirements. 
If  the  Jesuit  system  is  as  rigid  in  its  prescribed  matter  as  the 
system  attributed  to  the  Moslem,  then  it  has  failed  to  keep 
up  with  the  modern  development  of  knowledge,  and  to  utilize 
modern  sciences  that  possess  educational  values.  If  on  the 
other  hand  all  uniform  prescriptions  of  study  are  "  absurd  and 
impossible,"  if  no  two  individuals  even  of  the  same  family  can 
be  submitted  to  the  same  uniform  course  of  study,  if  only 
unlimited  "electivism"  is  wise  and  possible,  then  undoubtedly 
the  Jesuit  system,  and  the  system  of  many  colleges  wholly 
independent  of  the  Jesuits,  are  condemned.1 

Secondly,  no  fault  is  commoner  in  argumentation  than 
failure  to  keep  the  reader  clear  as  to  the  significance  for 
the  case  of  each  part  as  it  develops.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  when  a  reader  does  not  make  each  step  under- 
standingly,  he  must  either  take  what  is  said  as  an  argument 
from  authority  or  refuse  to  follow  what  he  does  not  under- 
stand. He  is  more  likely  to  choose  the  second  than  the 
first  course.  In  a  recent  discussion  of  the  question,  "  Was 
the  treatment  of  Colombia  by  the  United  States  in  its  recog- 
nition of  the  Republic  of  Panama  justifiable?"  one  speaker 
contended  that  the  recognition  was  in  accord  with  interna- 
tional law  and  pointed  to  some  instances  of  swift  recog- 
nition by  the  United  States  of  a  new  government,  notably 
in  the  case  of  Brazil.  An  opponent  replied  by  naming 
even  more  instances  of  slow  and  cautious  recognition 

1  President  Eliot  and  Jesuit  Colleges.  Rev.  T.  J.  Brosnahan,  S.J, 
pp.  5-6.  Review  Publishing  Co.,  Boston. 


178  EVIDENCE 

of  new  governments.  In  the  face  of  this  contradictory 
evidence  a  hearer  could  only  suspend  judgment.  The 
second  speaker  should  have  shown  the  relation  of  his  cases 
to  those  of  his  opponent  and  why  his  opponent's  did  not 
really  apply,  that  is,  he  should  by  emphasis  have  made 
clear  the  value  of  his  evidence  as  contrasted  with  that 
of  his  opponent. 

Finally,  emphasis  is  much  needed  when  the  process  of 
rebuttal  is  ending.  Do  not  pass  to  something  else,  secure 
that  your  opponent's  case  is  hopelessly  weakened  or  is 
demolished.  If  doubt  be  in  the  least  possible,  emphasize, 
showing  briefly  just  what  you  take  to  be  the  effect  on  your 
opponent's  case  of  what  you  have  done  and  the  consequent 
result  for  your  own  views ;  in  other  words,  make  clear  the 
exact  state  of  the  two  sides  of  the  case  as  you  finish  a 
piece  of  rebuttal.  Many  a  process  of  refutation,  especially 
if  long  and  involved,  has  missed  its  effect  on  a  reader  for 
lack  of  this  clear  emphasizing  of  the  work  accomplished.1 

This  summary  from  the  closing  argument  of  the  peti- 
tioners for  a  dam  on  the  Charles  River,  Boston,  not  only 
emphasizes  clearly  where  the  case  of  the  protestants  against 
the  dam  is  left  by  the  preceding  argument,  but  admirably 
leads  into  the  next  division  of  the  case. 

When  we  reflect  upon  the  facility  with  which  the  United 
States  engineers  abandoned  the  doctrine  of  compensation  in 
kind,  previously  held  by  them  to  be  a  necessary  corollary 
of  their  theory  of  tidal  scour ;  when  we  consider  that  no 

1  A  fourth  essential  in  good  refutation,  mobility,  will  be  treated 
in  the  chapter  on  Debating,  for  ability  to  shift  one's  plan  of  attack 
instantly  or  to  give  a  piece  of  rebuttal  a  different  emphasis  from  that 
planned  is  required  in  the  rapid  give  and  take  of  oral  rather  than  in 
written  work,  in  which  one's  whole  case  exactly  as  planned  may  be 
developed  before  reply  is  possible. 


EMPHASIS  IN  GOOD  REFUTATION  179 

injurious  results  followed  the  occupation  of  the  South  Boston 
flats  without  compensation  either  in  kind  or  in  dredging,  not- 
withstanding the  predictions  of  the  commissioners ;  that  the 
equally  emphatic  opinions  of  the  commissioners  against  the 
utilization  of  the  Upper  Mystic  Pond  as  a  source  of  water  sup- 
ply, and  in  favor  of  extensive  excavations  in  the  Lower  Mystic 
tidal  reservoir,  were  wholly  disregarded  without  perceptible 
injury  to  the  channel ;  when  we  consider  this  conflict  between 
opinion  and  results,  and  between  the  opinions  expressed  by 
the  same  engineers  in  1866  and  1871,  we  can  readily  under- 
stand the  hesitation  of  the  scientific  men  of  the  present  day 
—  even  if  ignorant  of  the  results  of  recent  investigations  —  to 
acofept  the  reasoning  and-conclusions  of  the  commissioners  who 
considered  the  subject  between  1835  and  1866.  Nor  will  the 
most  careful  perusal  of  their  arguments  help  their  case,  for, 
without  taking  account  of  the  assumptions  of  fact  which  later 
experience  proves  to  have  been  unwarranted,  their  conclusions, 
as  already  noted  (supra,  pp.  510-512),  were  based  on  data 
admittedly  inadequate  and  on  factors  conceded  to  be  insignifi- 
cant. Their  theory  was  formed  without  regard  to  many  facts 
of  admitted  importance  which  told  against  it ;  much  of  their 
reasoning  was,  to  say  the  least,  unscientific  ;  and  no  attempt  was 
made  to  test  the  applicability  to  this  harbor  of  experiments 
made  in  other  harbors  of  totally  different  conformation. 

Their  methods  seem  unscientific,  their  data  insufficient, 
their  conclusions  paradoxical ;  and  in  the  light  of  present 
information,  we  submit  that  the  question  is  not  so  much 
whether  the  theory  of  tidal  scour  is  applicable  to  the  ship 
channels  of  Boston  harbor,  as.  how  the  many  eminent  engineers 
who  served  on  the  various  commissions  between  1835  and 
1866  came  to  think  that  it  was. 

The  confidence  with  which  conclusions  were  drawn  by  these 
gentlemen  from  premises  so  inadequate  has  been  a  mystery 
to  every  one  who  has  read  their  reports ;  and  the  mystery 
deepens  when  we  contemplate  their  rejected  recommenda- 
tions, their  unverified  predictions,  the  change  in  the  opinions 


180  EVIDENCE 

of  some  of  them,  and  the  present  state  of  the  harbor,  —  so 
different  from  what  it  ought  to  be  if  their  theory  had  been 
correct. 

The  answer  to  these  questions,  the  solution  of  this  mystery, 
is,  we  submit,  beyond  doubt  to  be  found  in  the  erroneous 
geological  theories  which  were  current  in  the  early  and  mid- 
dle parts  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  which  were  accepted 
without  suspicion  by  the  engineers.1 

Refutation  and  structure.  The  relation  between  refuta- 
tion and  structure  is  vital.  Indeed,  there  are  certain  defi- 
nite principles  of  arrangement  that  should  be  observed  in 
regard  to  both  general  and  special  refutation.  For* the 
position  of  general  refutation — the  reply  that  a  writer 
makes  to  direct  attack  upon  not  details  of  proof,  but  his 
proposition  —  no  one  principle  can  be  laid  down.  One  or 
more  divisions  of  general  refutation  may  be  taken  up  at 
any  point  in  the  argument  at  which  logical  or  persuasive 
conditions  make  this  advantageous.  Usually  the  divisions 
of  general  refutation  will  appear  together,  but  by  no 
means  always.  The  attitude  of  the  audience  and  the  con- 
ditions of  the  argument  must  determine  which  one  of 
three  or  four  arrangements  should  be  adopted. 

The  initial  position.  If  a  man  is  writing  in  favor  of  some 
entirely  new  or  unpopular  idea,  to  which  his  readers  have 
well-defined  objections,  he  will  often  best  win  a  hearing 
by  using  his  most  cogent  reasoning  at  the  outset  to  weaken 
or  destroy  one  or  more  of  the  fundamental  ideas  on  which 
the  old  theory  rests.  By  so  doing  the  writer  not  only 
arouses  his  readers  to  respectful  attention,  but  clears  from 

1  The  Proposed  Charles  Ewer  Dam  and  Water  Park.  Closing  Argu- 
ment for  Petitioners.  N.  Matthews,  Jr.  and  W.  S.  Youngman.  pp.  617- 
518.  1902. 


THREE  POSITIONS  OF  REFUTATION  181 

his  way  ideas  which  might  have  led  his  readers  silently  to 
controvert  his  arguments  as  he  developed  them.  The  first 
principle,  then,  for  the  placing  of  General  Refutation  is: 
—  If  the  audience  disagree  with  a  writer  and  are  familiar 
with  the  arguments  of  an  opponent,  the  refutation  should 
be  placed  first  in  order  to  remove  the  objections  that  the 
audience  surely  have  in  mind  and  to  put  them  into  a  more 
favorable  attitude  toward  the  writer's  direct  proof.1 

The  final  position.  When,  on  the  other  hand,  an  audi- 
ence is  unprejudiced,  or  knows  scarcely  anything  about 
either  side  of  the  question,  a  writer  may  first  develop  his 
own  case  and  then  at  the  end  consider  the  general  objec- 
tions. Of  course,  if  he  follows  this  method,  he  must  be 
sure  that  his  answers  to  the  general  objections  are,  either 
by  themselves  or  taken  with  his  preceding  direct  proof, 
conclusive,  for  he  cannot  afford  to  give  his  reader  just  at  the 
end  of  the  argument  the  feeling  that  important  objections 
of  the  other  side  have  not  been  satisfactorily  met.2 

The  normal  position.  The  usual  place,  however,  for 
General  Refutation  is  somewhere  in  the  middle  of  the 
case,  between  cogent  divisions  of  direct  proof,  for  in  the 
majority  of  cases  refutation  does  not  destroy  an  opponent's 
argument,  but  merely  weakens  it  to  a  greater  or  less  extent. 
The  position  at  the  beginning  attracts  attention  at  once 
and  is  a  direct  challenge  to  the  opposition.  The  position 
at  the  end  is  effective  but  most  dangerous,  for  it  is  there 
that  the  strongest  effort  should  be  made  to  secure  the 
agreement  of  readers,  and  this  can  rarely  be  found  except 
in  positive  proof.  To  make  an  attempt  at  refutation  at 
the  close  that  is  not  generally  effective  and,  for  the  special 

1  See  Illustration  12,  in  Chap.  IV. 

2  See  Illustration  13,  in  Chap.  IV. 


182  EVIDENCE 

audience,  well-nigh  conclusive,  is  then  bad  tactics.  The 
middle  position  leaves  the  attention  of  the  reader  at  the 
beginning  and  the  end,  two  critical  places,  centered  not 
on  what  opponents  can  say  against  the  writer,  but  on  what 
he  himself  can  prove  true.  In  that  position  whatever  he 
can  say  to  controvert  in  any  degree  the  contentions  of  the 
other  side  counts  for  just  what  it  is  worth,  and  then  the 
writer  may  proceed,  after  weakening  his  opponent's  case 
somewhat,  to  emphasize  his  own  strongest  arguments.1 

A  combination  of  the  three  positions.  Of  course  it  is 
evident  that  the  divisions  of  general  refutation  need  not 
in  all  cases  stand  together.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  find 
that  some  divisions  of  the  general  refutation  are  needed  as 
preparatory,  whereas  other  divisions  would  be  out  of  place 
in  the  initial  position ;  certain  other  divisions  may  be 
cogent  enough  to  deserve  the  final  position,  whereas  it 
would  be  injudicious  and  even  reckless  to  mass  the  whole 
general  refutation  at  the  close.  The  writer  must  employ 
the  principles  of  persuasion 2  in  determining  which  of  the 
three  positions  to  use  or  whether  to  employ  a  combination 
of  two  or  three.8 

Arrangement  of  special  refutation.  The  principle  of 
arrangement  that  applies  to  Special  Refutation  is  very 
simple.  Special  Refutation  is  the  defense  mad_£_against 
actual  or  probable  objections  to  details  of  proof.  There- 
fore a  writer  cannot  safely  leave  any  heading  in  his  direct 
proof  until  he  has  answered  objections  which  unless  cleared 
away  might  block  the  movement  of  the  argument.  For 
example,  when  Lord  Chatham  urged  removing  the  British 

1  See  Illustration  14,  in  Chap.  IV. 

2  For  Persuasion  as  it  relates  to  the  placing  of  Refutation  see  Chap.  V. 

3  See  Illustration  15,  in  Chap.  IV. 


RECURRENT  REFUTATION          183 

troops  from  Boston,  TIP,  .advanced—in  support  of  his  idea 
that  the  measures  of  Parliament  had  failed,  not  merely 
proof  that  the  army  of  General  Gage  was  penned  up  inglo- 
riously  inactive,  but  refutation  of  the  objection  that  at 
least  the  army  provided  protection.  He  said  it  was  really 
powerless  and  irritating  to  the  Americans,  and  declared 
the  objection  that  the  army  was  needlessly  inactive  un- 
sound because  any  activity  would  bring  on  civil  war. 
Evidently,  he  could  not  hope  to  leave  his  point  as  to  the 
failure  of  Parliamentary  measures  till  he  had  met  the  first 
objection,  and  could  not  hope  to  dispose  of  the  first  objec- 
tion till  he  had  disposed  of  the  second.  Refutation  of 
objections,  not  to  the  proposition,  but  to  details  of  proof, 
should  meet  such  objections  where  they  arise. 

Recurrent  refutation.  Sometimes  an  opponent  raises  the 
same  objection  to  several  parts  of  a  case.  If  so,  he  simply 
scatters  the  presentation  of  a  general  objection.  For 
instance,  when  Carl  Schurz  argued  in  behalf  of  a  general 
rather  than  a  special  amnesty  for  ex-Confederates,  he  found 
the  same  objection  facing  him  at  a  number  of  places  in 
his  speech,  namely  that  he  was  forgetting  the  position  in 
the  South  of  the  freedmen.1  Whenever  he  felt  the  objection 
could  arise,  he  answered  it.  When  one's  opponent  appears 
to  mistake  his  recurrent  general  refutation  for  special 
refutation,  it  is  certainly  effective  to  point  this  out  by 
refuting  the  recurrent  cases  early  in  the  case  as  one  gen- 
eral objection.  Certainly,  if  the  general  objection  can  be 
disposed  of  once  for  all,  an  early  treatment  of  it  is  desir- 
able. On  the  other  hand,  if  reply  at  the  outset  can  only 
weaken  it,  the  special  conditions  under  which  the  objection 
presents  itself  in  each  case  may  offer  additional  chances  to 

1  The  Forms  of  Public  Address,     pp.  358,  359,  379. 


184  EVIDENCE 

weaken  it,  and  there  may  be  cumulative  force  in  the  group 
of  replies  or  in  the  repetition  of  the  one  or  two  answers 
which  can  be  made.  There  is,  too,  persuasive  effect  at 
times,  as  in  Mr.  Schurz'  speech,  in  showing  that  one 
knows  each  point  at  which  the  objection  may  be  held  to 
apply  and  is  prepared  for  it.  But  whether  such  an  idea 
be  taken  up  once  for  all  or  recurrently  it  is  really  a  gen- 
eral objection. 

Refutation  and  evidence.  Just  aj5_analysis  in  refutation 
shows  what  is  to  be  selected  and  where  it  should  be  placed 
in  the  case,  so  the  laws  of  evidence  show  with  what  the 
well-selected  and  well-placed  ideas  may  be  made  good.  To 
refutation  applies  all  that  has  been  said  as  to  evidence  in 
the  earlier  sections  of  this  chapter,  and  for  convenience  in 
refutation  a  table  is  added  of  the  opportunities  for  attacking 
the  various  kinds  of  arguments  already  discussed.  The 
chief  point  to  remember  in  the  use  of  any  or  all  of  these 
answers  is:  In  refutation  and  direct  proof  alike  one's  evi- 
dence must  be  valued  not  by  itself  but  in  relation  to  oppos- 
ing evidence  already  adduced  or  likely  to  be  adduced.1  If 
this  persistent  need  to  handle  evidence  comparatively  be 
borne  in  mind,  a  student  will  avoid  some  of  the  worst 
pitfalls  of  argumentation. 

Opportunities  for  refutation 

1.  Is  the  testimony  of  the  witness  inconsistent  with 
human  experience,  the  known  facts  in  the  case,  or  with 
itself? 

2.  Is  there  anything  in  the  conditions  under  which 
witness  testifies  which  renders  his  evidence  suspicious  ? 

1  i  See  the  illustration  from  the  Panama  Case,  p.  177. 


METHOD  OF  RESIDUES  185 

3.  Is  the  witness  incompetent  to   testify  because   of 
prejudice,  or  mental,  physical,  or  moral  weakness  ? 

4.  Has  your  opponent  argued  from  a  resemblance  that 
does  not  hold  in  some  particular  vitally  connected  with 
the  point  under  discussion? 

5.  Has  your  opponent  used  undefined  or  misleading 
terms  ? 

6.  Is  your  opponent's  reasoning  based  on  careless  or 
faulty  observation? 

7.  Has  your  opponent  assumed  the  truth  of  a  premise 
which  you  have  evidence  to  disprove  ? 

8.  Can  you  show  that  the  conclusion  of  your  opponent 
does  not  follow  from  his  premises  ? 

9.  Has  your  opponent  in  any  way  ignored  the  question 
really  under  discussion  ? 

10.  Are  the  generalizations  of  your  opponent  based  on 
faulty  induction,  in  that  the  instances  observed  are  too  few, 
or  are  obviously  selected  for  the  special  point  in  dispute? 

11.  Has  your  opponent  used  as  cause  something  which 
is  merely  a  coincidence  or  an  attendant  circumstance  ? 

12.  Has  your  opponent  relied  on  a  cause  inadequate  to 
produce  the  result  alleged? 

13.  Is  such  a  multiplicity  of  causes  involved  that  the 
one  alleged  to  be  effective  cannot  be  known  to  have  been 
operative  ? 

Method  of  residues.  There  are,  too,  certain  special  de- 
vices for  presenting  one's  reply  to  an  argument  or  a  group 
of  arguments,  and  among  these  one  of  the  most  effective 
is  the  Method  of  Residues.  In  this  a  writer  shows  what  are 
all  the  theories  held  in  regard  to  some  disputed  maibter, 
for  instance  further  restriction  of  immigration,  and  then, 
by  excluding  one  after  the  other  for  convincing  reasons, 


186  EVIDENCE 

leaves  at  least  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  his  own 
plan.  Proof  is  usually  given,  as  was  explained  on  p.  169, 
for  the  theory  left  after  the  fall  of  the  others  because  until 
that  theory  has  been  shown  to  be  sound,  it  is  of  course  pos- 
sible that  some  other  hypothesis  or  plan  not  yet  evolved 
may  be  the  best.  This  is  the  method  used  by  Professor 
Huxley  in  his  Three  Lectures  on  Evolution. 

The  dilemma.  In  the  Dilemma  a  writer  reduces  his 
opponent's  case  to  an  alternative  ;  shows  that  the  first  part 
does  not  hold  true ;  then  that  the  second  part  does  not ; 
and  concludes  that  his  opponent  has  no  valid  case.  Plainly 
a  writer  does  not  through  the  Dilemma  necessarily  prove 
the  truth  of  his  own  ideas,  but  only  clears  the  ground  for 
his  own  constructive  case.  Huxley  used  this  argument 
effectively  in  disproving  the  Miltonic  hypothesis  in  regard 
to  the  creation  of  the  world  —  the  theory  that  it  was 
created  in  seven  days,  the  birds  on  one  day,  the  fish  on 
another,  etc. 

The  Miltonic  hypothesis  contains  assertions  of  a  very  defi- 
nite character,  relating  to  the  succession  of  living  forms.  It 
is  stated  that  plants,  for  example,  made  their  appearance  upon 
the  third  day,  and  not  before.  And  you  will  understand  that 
what  the  poet  means  by  plants  are  such  plants  as  now  live, 
the  ancestors,  in  the  ordinary  way  of  propagation  like  by  like, 
of  the  trees  and  shrubs  which  flourish  in  the  present  world.  It 
must  needs  be  so ;  for,  if  they  were  different,  either  the  exist- 
ing plants  have  been  the  result  of  a  separate  origination  since 
that  described  by  Milton  [first  horn  of  dilemma],  of  which  we 
have  no  record,  nor  any  ground  for  supposition  that  such  an 
occurrence  has  taken  place ;  or  else  they  have  arisen  by  a 
process  of  evolution  from  the  original  stocks  [second  horn  of 
the  dilemma,  the  strength  of  which  is  not  admitted  by  holders 
of  the  Miltouic  hypothesis].  .  .  .  And,  again,  if  it  be  true 


DILEMMA— REDUCTIO  AD  ABSURDUM  1ST 

that  all  varieties  of  fishes  and  the  great  whales,  and  the  like, 
made  their  appearance  on  the  fifth  day,  we  ought  to  find  the 
remains  of  these  animals  in  the  older  rocks  —  in  those  which 
were  deposited  before  the  carboniferous  epoch.  Fishes  we  do 
find,  in  considerable  number  and  variety;  but  the  great  whales 
are  absent,  and  the  fishes  are  not  such  as  now  live.  Not  one 
solitary  species  of  fish  now  in  existence  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Devonian  or  Silurian  formations.  Hence  we  are  introduced 
afresh  to  the  dilemma  which  I  have  already  placed  before  you: 
either  the  animals  which  came  into  existence  on  the  fifth  day 
were  not  such  as  those  which  are  found  at  present,  are  not 
the  direct  and  immediate  ancestors  of  those  which  now  exist 
[this  is  contrary  to  the  belief  of  those  holding  the  theory] ; 
in  which  case  either-  fresh  creations,  of  which  nothing  is  said, 
or  a  process  of  evolution  must  have  occurred ;  or  else  the 
whole  story  must  be  given  up,  as  not  only  devoid  of  any  cir- 
cumstantial evidence,  but  contrary  to  such  evidence  as  exists.1 

Reductio  ad  Absurdum.  In  the  Reductio  ad  Absurdum 
a  writer,  assuming  for  the  moment  the  truth  of  his  oppo- 
nent's statement,  shows  that  it  proves  too  much  and  leads 
to  absurdity.  Beecher,  when  part  of  his  Liverpool  audi- 
ence favored  the  South  because  it  must  always  sympathize 
with  "the  weaker  people,  the  minority,"  answered  by 
showing  the  absurdity  of  any  attempt  to  carry  out  this 
theory  in  all  cases. 

You  cannot  help  going  with  the  minority,  who  are  strug- 
gling for  their  rights  against  the  majority.  Nothing  could  be 
more  generous,  when  a  weak  party  stands  for  its  own  legiti- 
mate rights  against  imperious  pride  and  power,  than  to  sympa- 
thize with  the  weak.  But  who  ever  sympathized  with  a  weak 
thief,  because  three  constables  had  got  hold  of  him  ?  [Hear, 
hear !]  And  yet  the  one  thief  in  three  policemen's  hands  is 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  80,  82-83. 


188  EVIDENCE 

the  weaker  party.  I  suppose  you  would  sympathize  with 
him.  [Hear,  hear  !  laughter,  and  applause.]  Why,  when 
that  infamous  king  of  Naples,  Bomba,  was  driven  into  Gaeta 
by  Garibaldi  with  his  immortal  band  of  patriots,  and  Cavour 
sent  against  him  the  army  of  Northern  Italy,  who  was  the 
weaker  party  then  ?  The  tyrant  and  his  minions ;  and  the 
majority  was  with  the  noble  Italian  patriots,  struggling  for 
liberty.  I  never  heard  that  Old  England  sent  deputations 
to  King  Bomba,  and  yet  his  troops  resisted  bravely  there. 
[Laughter  and  interruption.]  To-day  the  majority  of  the 
people  of  Rome  is  with  Italy.  Nothing  but  French  bayonets 
keeps  her  from  going  back  to  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  to  which 
she  belongs.  Do  you  sympathize  with  the  minority  in  Rome 
or  the  majority  in  Italy  ? J 

In  the  following,  from  the  speech  on  Conciliation  with 
the  American  Colonies,  Burke  showed  the  absurdity  of  the 
statement,  "  We  should  impoverish  our  colonies  in  order 
to  make  them  obedient "  :  — 

To  impoverish  the  colonies  in  general,  and  in  particular  to 
arrest  the  noble  course  of  their  marine  enterprises,  would  be 
a  more  easy  task.  I  freely  confess  it.  We  have  shown  a  dis- 
position to  a  system  of  this  kind.  .  .  .  But  when  I  consider 
that  we  have  colonies  for  no  purpose  but  to  be  serviceable 
to  us,  it  seems  to  my  poor  understanding  a  little  preposterous 
to  make  them  unserviceable  in  order  to  keep  them  obedient.2 

Enforcing  the  consequences.  Another  method,  analogous 
to  the  Reductio  ad  Absurdum,  is  to  show  that  an  oppo- 
nent's theory  or  statement  if  carried  to  its  ultimate  con- 
clusions leads  to  conditions  generally  held  undesirable  or 
known  to  be  unacceptable  to  the  audience  addressed.  In 
the  first  instance  the  theory  or  statement  refutes  itself,  but 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     p.  170. 

2  Political  Orations.     Camelot  Series,    p.  77. 


ENFORCING  THE  CONSEQUENCES  189 

in  the  second  case  care  must  be  used  to  avoid  the  fallacy 
of  arguing  from  a  part  to  the  whole.  For  instance,  a 
political  speaker  might  well  argue  before  an  audience  of 
stanch  Republicans  that  some  statement  if  pushed  to  its 
ultimate  conclusions  would  thwart  the  policy  of  Protec- 
tion, but  he  cannot,  of  course,  conclude  that  this  refuta- 
tion will  hold  good  for  the  country  at  large.  J.  S.  Black, 
in  his  speech  on  The  Right  to  Trial  ly  Jury,  thus  enforced 
the  consequences  of  the  position  of  his  opponents :  — 

This,  therefore,  must  be  their  position:  That  although 
there  was  no  war  at  the  place  where  this  commission  sat,  and 
no  actual  necessity  for  it,  yet  if  there  was  a  war  anywhere 
else,  to  which  the  United  States  were  a  party,  the  technical 
effect  of  such  war  was  to  take  the  jurisdiction  away  from  the 
civil  courts  and  transfer  it  to  army  officers. 

GENERAL  BUTLER  :  We  do  not  take  that  position. 

MR.  BLACK  :  Then  they  can  take  no  ground  at  all,  for 
nothing  else  is  left.  I  do  not  wonder  to  see  them  recoil  from 
their  own  doctrine  when  its  nakedness  is  held  up  to  their 
eyes.  But  they  must  stand  upon  that  or  give  up  their  cause. 
They  may  not  state  their  proposition  precisely  as  I  state  it ; 
that  is  too  plain  a  way  of  putting  it.  But,  in  substance,  it  is 
their  doctrine  —  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral's office  ever  since 'the  advent  of  the  present  incumbent  — 
and  is  the  doctrine  of  their  brief,  printed  and  filed  in  this 
case.  What  else  can  they  say  ?  They  will  admit  that  the 
Constitution  is  not  altogether  without  a  meaning  ;  that  at  a 
time  of  universal  peace  it  imposes  some  kind  of  obligation 
upon  those  who  swear  to  support  it.  If  no  war  existed  they 
would  not  deny  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  courts 
in  criminal  cases.  How,  then,  did  the  military  get  jurisdiction 
in  Indiana? 

All  men  who  hold  the  Attorney-General's  opinion  to  be 
true  answer  the  question  I  have  put  by  saying  that  military 


190  EVIDENCE 

jurisdiction  comes  from  the  mere  existence  of  war  ;  and  it 
comes  in  Indiana  only  as  the  legal  result  of  a  war  which  is 
going  on  in  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  or  South  Carolina.  The 
Constitution  is  repealed,  or  its  operation  suspended,  in  one 
State  because  there  is  war  in  another.  The  courts  are  open, 
the  organization  of  society  is  intact,  the  judges  are  on  the 
bench,  and  their  process  is  not  impeded;  but  their  jurisdic- 
tion is  gone.  Why  ?  Because,  say  our  opponents,  war  exists, 
and  the  silent,  legal,  technical  operation  of  that  fact  is  to 
deprive  all  American  citizens  of  their  right  to  a  fair  trial. 

That  class  of  jurists  and  statesmen,  who  hold  that  the  trial 
by  jury  is  lost  to  the  citizen  during  the  existence  of  war, 
carry  out  their  doctrine,  theoretically  and  practically,  to  its 
ultimate  consequences.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  being  gone, 
all  other  rights  are  gone  with  it ;  therefore  a  man  may  be 
arrested  without  an  accusation,  and  kept  in  prison  during  the 
pleasure  of  his  captors  ;  his  papers  may  be  searched  without 
a  warrant  ;  his  property  may  be  confiscated  behind  his  back, 
and  he  has  no  earthly  means  of  redress.  Nay,  an  attempt  to 
get  a  just  remedy  is  construed  as  a  new  crime.  He  dare  not 
even  complain,  for  the  right  of  free  speech  is  gone  with  the 
rest  of  his  rights.  If  you  sanction  that  doctrine,  what  is  to 
be  the  consequence?  I  do  not  speak  of  what  is  past  and 
gone  ;  but  in  case  of  a  future  war,  what  results  will  follow 
from  your  decision  indorsing  the  Attorney-General's  views  ? 
They  are  very  obvious.  At  the  instant  when  war  begins,  our 
whole  system  of  legal  government  will  tumble  into  ruin,  and 
if  we  are  not  all  robbed,  and  kidnaped,  and  hanged,  and  drawn, 
and  quartered,  we  will  owe  our  immunity,  not  to  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws,  but  to  the  mere  mercy  or  policy  of  those 
persons  who  may  then  happen  to  control  the  organized 
physical  force  of  the  country.1 

Turning  the  tables.  It  is  a  particularly  effective  device 
in  refutation  for  a  writer  to  take  up  an  argument  as  if  to 

1  American  Oratory.  R.  C.  Kingwalt.  pp.  162-164.  H,  Holt&Co.  1898. 


TURNING  THE  TABLES  191 

refute  it  and  then  to  show  that  it  makes  not  for  but  against 
his  opponent,  —  to  turn  the  tables.  Carl  Schurz  in  his 
speech  on  G-eneral  Amnesty  used  this  method  in  answer- 
ing the  objection  to  general  amnesty  that  under  it  the  law 
against  treason  would  lack  vindication. 

The  senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Buckingham],  whom  I 
am  so  unfortunate  as  not  to  see  in  his  seat  to-day,  when  he 
opened  the  debate,  endeavored  to  fortify  his  theory  by  an 
illustration  borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  I  am 
willing  to  take  that  illustration  off  his  hands.  He  asked,  if 
Absalom  had  lived  after  his  treason,  and  had  been  excluded 
from  his  father's  table,  would  he  have  had  a  just  reason  to 
complain  of  an  unjust  deprivation  of  rights  ?  It  seems  to 
me  that  story  of  Absalom  contains  a  most  excellent  lesson, 
which  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  ought  to  read  correctly. 
For  the  killing  of  his  brother,  Absalom  had  lived  in  banish- 
ment, from  which  the  king,  his  father,  permitted  him  to 
return  ;  but  the  wayward  son  was  but  half  pardoned,  for  he 
was  not  permitted  to  see  his  father's  face.  And  it  was  for 
that  reason,  and  then,  that  he  went  among  the  people  to. 
seduce  them  into  a  rebellion  against  his  royal  father's  author- 
ity. Had  he  survived  that  rebellion,  King  David,  as  a  pru- 
dent statesman,  would  either  have  killed  his  son  Absalom  or 
he  would  have  admitted  him  to  his  table,  in  order  to  make 
him  a  good  son  again  by  unstinted  fatherly  love.  But  he 
would  certainly  not  have  permitted  his  son  Absalom  to  run 
at  large,  capable  of  doing  mischief,  and  at  the  same  time  by 
small  measures  of  degradation  inciting  him  to  do  it.  And 
that  is  just  the  policy  we  have  followed.  We  have  permitted 
the  late  rebels  to  run  at  large,  capable  of  doing  mischief,  and 
then  by  small  measures  of  degradation,  utterly  useless  for 
any  good  purpose,  we  incited  them  to  do  it.  Looking  at  your 
political  disabilities  with  an  impartial  eye,  you  will  find  that, 
as  a  measure  of  punishment,  they  did  not  go  far  enough ;  as 
a  measure  of  policy  they  went  much  too  far.  We  were  far 


192  EVIDENCE 

too  generous  to  subjugate  the  hearts  of  our  late  enemies  by 
terror ;  and  we  mixed  our  generosity  with  just  enough  of  bit- 
terness to  prevent  it  from  bearing  its  full  fruit.  I  repeat, 
we  can  make  the  policy  of  generosity  most  fruitful  only  by 
making  it  most  complete.  What  objection,  then,  can  stand 
against  this  consideration  of  public  good  ? l 

Refutation  and  persuasion.  Persuasion,  too,  plays  its 
part  in  refutation,  for  not  only,  as  has  been  explained  on 
pp.  180-182,  does  the  relation  of  the  audience  to  the  sub- 
ject affect  the  position  given  general  refutation,  but  the 
attitude  of  a  writer  toward  his  opponent  may  have  positive 
persuasive  effect.  For  instance,  men  skilled  in  argumen- 
tation have  always  recognized  the  value  of  granting  to  an 
opponent  as  much  as  possible  of  his  case,  for  when  a 
writer  so  treats  an  opponent  he  produces  at  the  outset 
belief  in  his  fairness,  sureness,  and  mastery  of  his  task. 
Secondly,  one  should  never  intentionally  misrepresent  an 
opponent,  saying,  for  example,  that  he  has  committed  him- 
self to  an  idea  perhaps  like  his  statement  but  not  it  exactly. 
Evident  intentional  misrepresentation  is  liable  to  have  the 
effect  it  deserves,  —  to  destroy  a  reader's  confidence.  Mis- 
representation, even  when  it  comes  as  honest  error,  is 
ineffective,  for  to  a  reader  who  sees  the  mistake  it  sug- 
gests that  the  writer  is  neither  keen  nor  just.  Moreover, 
keep  your  temper.  Righteous  indignation  is  justifiable, 
for  of  course  there  are  times  when  the  palpable  trickery 
or  dishonesty  of  an  opponent  deserves  excoriating,  but 
irritability  is  always  petty,  and  anger  is  safe  only  when 
one  is  sure  that  a  reader  must  share  heartily  in  it.  The 

1  The  Forms  of  Public  Address,  pp.  367-368.  H.  Holt  &  Co.  1904. 
For  another  illustration  of  this  method  see  Specimens  of  Argumentation, 
pp.  15-16,  1.  25  et  seq. 


ANALYSIS,  EVIDENCE,  AND  STRUCTURE  RELATED    193 

underlying  facts  in  all  this  are  that  leadership  must  rest 
largely  on  a  constant  effect  of  perfect  control  of  one's  self 
and  one's  material,  and  that  both  anger  and  irritability 
mean  lack  of  self-control. 

Summary  of  Refutation.  It  is  now  clear,  probably,  why 
refutation  is  not  easily  mastered.  Depending  as  it  does 
on  analysis,  structure,  evidence,  knowledge  of  certain 
methods  of  presentation,  and  some  persuasion,  it  can  be 
used  with  sureness  only  by  him  who  has  mastered  all  these 
divisions  of  argumentation.  Practice  in  it  may  and  should 
begin  early  in  study  of  the  subject,  but  mastery  of  it 
inevitably  comes  late. 

The  relation  of  analysis,  evidence,  and  structure.  In 
actual  practice  there  is,  of  course,  no  such  sharp  division 
between  analysis  and  the  use  of  evidence  as  has  been  made 
in  the  preceding  discussion,  for  even  as  any  one  reads 
widely  in  order  to  inform  himself  correctly  on  the  history 
of  a  question  in  order  ultimately  to  find  the  issues  involved 
in  the  case,  he  must  meet  much  evidence.  In  practice  he 
does  not  thrust  it  aside,  pressing  on  with  an  eye  only  for 
the  issues,  but  values  it  roughly  even  as  it  appears  and 
stores  it  away  for  use  if,  when  the  issues  have  been 
determined,  it  shall  really  prove  serviceable  to  his  case. 
This  double  and  time-saving  process  is,  however,  possible 
only  for  a  person  who  understands  what  has  just  been 
pointed  out  in  regard  to  evidence  and  assertion  and  the 
kinds  and  the  tests  of  evidence.  When,  too,  analysis  has 
done  its  work,  a  knowledge  of  all  the  matters  treated 
in  this  chapter  becomes  essential,  for  the  outline  of  the 
case  given  by  the  issues  and  the  related  ideas,  both 
found  through  the  'history  of  the  question  and  the  clash 
in  opinion,  can  be  developed  only  with  evidence,  and 


194  EVIDENCE 

thoroughly  developed  only  with  evidence  well  selected 
and  valued.  Therefore,  again,  the  division  between  evi- 
dence and  the  next  subject  to  be  treated,  Brief-Draw- 
ing, is  pedagogic,  not  actual.  Really  a  good  brief  is  a 
framework  provided  by  analysis  made  firm  and  solid  by 
evidence. 

EXERCISES 

1.  Assertion  and  evidence.    Rapidly  analyze  some  college  question 
before  the  class  to  its  issues.     Ask  the  class  to  consider  one  or  more 
of  the  issues  carefully  and  to  come  next  time  with  evidence  support- 
ing the  opinion  they  have  formed  as  to  the  issue.     Discuss  this 
evidence  with  the  class. 

2.  Assertion  and  evidence.   Let  the  class  prepare  evidential  support 
for  the  assertive  forensic  in  the  Appendix.    Let  them  arrange  it  out- 
side or  in  the  class  room.    Discuss  their  work  with  them.    As  an  alter- 
native the  forensic  may  be  discussed  without  any  outside  preparation 
by  the  class.    In  the  discussion,  under  either  plan,  contrast  with  the 
assertive  forensic  that  on  Home  Rule  in  Ulster  (cf.  Appendix). 

3.  Kinds  of  evidence.   Let  the  students  gather  from  newspapers 
and  periodicals  specimens  of  the  different  kinds  of  evidence.    Discuss 
these  with  the  class. 

4.  Kinds  of  evidence.   Ask  the  class  to  read  Lord  Mansfield's  speech 
in  behalf  of  Allan  Evans,  Specimens  of  A  rgumentation,  pp.  22-40,  and 
one  other  of  the  selections  in  that  volume.     Let  them,  in  the  class 
room,  point  out  in  writing  at  least  two  cases  of  induction  and  two 
of  deduction  occurring  in  the  selections  studied,  and  one  specimen 
each  of  generalization,  argument  from  cause  to  effect  or  effect  to 
cause,  argument  from  resemblance,  and  analogy. 

5.  Kinds  of  evidence.    Let  the  students  classify  the  following  argu- 
ments, good  and  bad,  under  the  three  divisions  of  inductive  argu- 
ment:  generalization,  argument  based  on  causal  relationship,  and 
argument  based  on  resemblance. 

1.  It  seems  plain,  then,  that  Jefferson,  were  he  alive  to-day,  would  be  pre- 
eminently qualified  to  deal  with  the  problems  that  confront  us,  by  the  breadth 
and  penetration  of  his  mind,  by  his  subordination  of  formulated  principles  to 
the  aims  for  which  they  were  devised,  and  by  the  tenacity  of  his  adherence  to 
the  paramount  purpose  of  all  government,  to  wit,  the  salvation  of  the  nation. 


EXERCISES  195 

2.  There  is  just  one  difference  which,  in  my  judgment,  gives  Yale  the 
advantage.    Rockwell  runs  his  plays  with  the  smooth  speed  of  an  automobile, 
while  Marshall,  Harvard's  quarterback,  slows  them  up.    He  keeps  tha-  forma- 
tion waiting  on  its  toes  in  its  anxiety  to  be  off,  and  there  are  frequent  false 
starts.    The  result  is  its  direction  becomes  evident  to  the  other  side  and  the 
necessary  steps  are  taken  to  stop  it.     I  believe,  therefore,  that  Yale  will  do 
more  ground  gaining  than  Harvard  in  the  running. game. 

3.  With  sixty-five  thousand  nine  hundred  and  forty-five  votes  cast  in  this 
State  at  the  recent  election  it  does  not  look  as  if  Rhode  Island  had  lost  much 
interest  in  affairs  political.     Never  before  were  so  many  ballots  cast  within 
her  borders. 

4.  Now,  it  is  n't  necessarily  tuning  a  piano  to  have  a  tuner  tune  it,  any 
more  than  it  is  necessarily  repairing  a  watch  to  have  a  watch  repairer  repair  it. 

5.  Walter  McMillan  will  serve  as  a  good  illustration  of  a  young  man  who 
"  woke  up."    He  was  employed  as  a  clerk  by  the  Armour  Packing  Company 
of  Kansas  City,  with  nothing  in  prospect  but  the  desk  with  its  endless  drudgery. 
He  read  the  signs  correctly,  and  after  careful  investigation  decided  that  the 
Chicago  College  of  Advertising  could  give  him  the  thorough,  practical  adver- 
tising education  he  craved.     Almost  immediately  after  completing  the  course 
he  was  referred  by  the  college  to  the  Kansas  City  Journal,  where  he  started 
at  just  four  times  the  salary  he  was  receiving  in  his  former  position.    He  is 
there  to-day  and  has  been  still  further  advanced. 

What  Mr.  McMillan  has  done  you  can  do. 

6.  "My  new  play  is  sure  to  make  a  hit,"  said  the  eminent  actress ;  "  it  gives 
me  an  opportunity  to  show  twenty  superb  gowns." 

7.  No,  Colombia  will  not  fight.    No  country  whose  credit  is  quoted  at  four- 
teen cents  on  the  dollar  goes  to  war  with  an  enemy  bigger  than  itself.    It  lacks 
the  sinews.  * 

8.  The  business  outlook  for  the  present  year  is  not  encouraging  because  it 
is  the  year  of  a  presidential  election  and  previous  presidential  elections  have 
caused  unsettled  business  conditions. 

9.  After  the  electric  current  had  been  turned  on  for  a  few  minutes,  Mr. 
Helberger  noticed  that,  out  of  the  ground  adjacent  to  the  mold,  worms  were 
coming  hurry-skurry.     In  his  opinion,  these  actions  on  the  part  of  the  worms 
could  only  be  attributed  to  the  influence  of  the  electric  current. 

10.  Mrs.  Winslow's  Soothing  Syrup  has  been  used  for  over  fifty  years  by 
millions  of  mothers  for  the  children,  while  teething,  with  perfect  success.    All 
mothers  having  children  which  are  teething,  should  use  it. 

11.  From  the  dispatches  covering  the  matter  we  learn  that  Mr.  Clarence 
Darrow,  the  lawyer  who  won  great  distinction  as  counsel  for  the  United  Mine 
Workers'  Union  before  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  commission,  is  representing 
the  street  car  employees  in  the  Chicago  trouble.    And  it  is,  therefore,  not  sur- 
prising that  an  amicable  settlement  is  a  prospect  of  the  future. 


196  EVIDENCE 

12.  Three  times  within  the  past  two  years  collisions  between  train  and 
electric  car  have  occurred  at  the  same  crossing.    Eecords  of  each  investigation 
show  that  the  cause  of  the  accident  was  the  slippery  condition  of  the  tracks 
and  not  the  carelessness  of  the  motorman.     Since,  then,  the  conditions  of  the 
present  accident  are  similar  to  those  of  the  past  we  argue  that  the  blame  for 
the  accident  cannot  fall  upon  the  motorman. 

13.  Senator  Hoar  makes  it  known  in  his  autobiography  that  President 
McKinley  offered  to  him  the  post  of  Ambassador  to  England  and  that  he 
refused,  partly  because  he  wished  to  remain  in  the  Senate  and  partly  because 
he  could  not  afford  to  live  in  London  in  the  way  in  which  it  is  necessary  for 
our  representative  to  live  there.    Thus  we  have  a  specific  instance  of  the  well 
recognized  truth  that  the  miserable  salaries  which  we  pay  our  foreign  ministers 
render  it  necessary  for  the  Presidents  to  choose  from  wealthy  men. 

14.  Wisest  of  beasts  the  serpent  see, 
Just  emblem  of  eternity, 

And  of  a  State's  duration ; 
Each  year  an  annual  skin  he  takes, 
And  with  fresh  life  and  vigor  wakes 

At  every  renovation. 

Britain !  that  serpent  imitate. 

Thy  Commons  House,  that  skin  of  State, 

By  annual  choice  restore ; 
So  choosing  thou  shalt  live  secure, 
And  freedom  to  thy  sons  inure, 

Till  Time  shall  be  no  more.1 

15.  Of  the  time  and  place  of  persons,  and  things,  and  events  and  customs, 
he  appears  to  have  been  quite  regardless.    He  knew  that  such  great  men  as 
Galen,  and  Alexander,  and  Cato,  once  lived,  that  Galen  was  a  celebrated  physi- 
cian, Alexander,  a  famous  conqueror,  and  Cato  (the  Censor),  an  eminent  patriot, 
and  soldier,  and  statesman ;  but  he  introduces  them  all  into  one  of  his  greatest 
plays,  —  perhaps  the  most  perfect  as  a  work  of  dramatic  art, —  Coriolanns! 
The  period  of  the  legendary  Coriolanus  was  the  5th  century  before  Christ ;  his 
victory  over  the  Volsciaus,  at  Corioli,  being  placed  at  450  B.C.    Alexander  was 
born  nearly  150  years  later ;  Cato,  more  than  250  years  later ;  and  Galen,  more 
than  600  years  later. 

The  Winter's  Tale  exhibits  false  geography,  and  a  jolly  jumble  of  times 
and  events  and  persons.  The  great  poet  was  too  much  occupied  with  his 
dramatic  creation,  to  trouble  himself  with  the  mere  matters  of  scholarship. 
Accordingly,  Bohemia  is  made  a  maritime  country  (as  it  is,  also,  in  the  original 
novel,  "Pandosto,  or  the  Triumph  of  Time,"  by  Robert  Green);  Whitsun 
pastorals  and  Christian  burial,  and  numerous  other  features  of  the  Elizabethan 
age,  are  introduced  into  pagan  times;  Qi\een  Hermione  speaks  of  herself  as 
daughter  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia ;  her  statue  is  represented  as  executed  by 

1  Logic  Inductive  and  Deductive.     William  Minto.     p.  373. 


EXERCISES  197 

Julio  Romano,  an  Italian  painter  of  the  16th  century;  a  puritan  sings  psalms 
to  hornpipes ;  and  to  crown  all,  messengers  are  sent  to  consult  the  oracle  of 
Apollo,  at  Delphi,  which  is  represented  as  an  island !  * 

16.  As  to  the  position,  pursuits,  and  connections  of  Junius,  the  following 
are  the  most  important  facts  which  can  be  considered  as  clearly  proved :  first, 
that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  technical  forms  of  the  Secretary  of  State's 
office ;  secondly,  that  he  was  intimately  acquainted  with  the  business  of  the 
war-office;   thirdly,  that  he,  during  the  year  1770,  attended  debates  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  and  took  notes  of  speeches,  particularly  of  the  speeches  of 
Lord  Chatham;  fourthly,  that  he  bitterly  resented  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Chamier  to  the  place  of  Deputy  Secretary  of  War ;  fifthly,  that  he  was  bound 
by  some  strong  tie  to  the  first  Lord  Holland.    Now,  Francis  passed  some  years 
in  the  Secretary  of  State's  office ;  he  was  subsequently  chief  clerk  of  the  war- 
office  ;  he  repeatedly  mentioned  that  he  had  himself,  in  1770,  heard  speeches 
of  Lord  Chatham,  and  some  of  those  speeches  were  actually  printed  from  his 
notes;  he  resigned  his  clerkship  at  the  war-office  from  resentment  at  the 
appointment  of  Mr.  Chamier ;  it  was  by  Lord  Holland  that  he  was  first  intro- 
duced into  the  public  service.    Now  here  are  five  marks,  all  of  which  ought 
to  be  found  in  Junius.    They  are  all  five  found  in  Francis.    We  do  not  believe 
that  more  than  two  of  them  can  be  found  in  any  other  person  whatever.2 

17.  Sir,  there  are  two  passions  which  have  a  powerful  influence  in  the 
affairs  of  men.    These  are  ambition  and  avarice;  the  love  of  power  and  the 
love  of  money.     Separately,  each  of  these  has  great  force  in  prompting  men 
to  action;  but  when  united  in  view  of  the  same  object,  they  have  in  many 
minds  the  most  violent  effects.    Place  before  the  eyes  of  such  men  a  post  of 
honor,  that  shall  at  the  same  time  be  a  place  of  profit,  and  they  will  remove 
heaven  and  earth  to  obtain  it.    The  vast  number  of  such  places  it  is  that  renders 
the  British  government  so  tempestuous.     The  struggles  for  them  are  the  true 
source  of  all  those  factions  which  are  perpetually  dividing  the  nation.  .  .  . 

And  of  what  kind  are  the  men  that  will  strive  for  this  profitable  preeminence, 
through  all  the  bustle  of  cabal,  the  heat  of  contention,  the  infinite  mutual  abuse 
of  parties,  tearing  to  pieces  the  best  of  characters  ?  It  will  not  be  the  wise  and 
moderate,  the  lovers  of  peace  and  good  order,  the  men  fittest  for  the  trust.  It 
will  be  the  bold  and  the  violent,  the  men  of  strong  passions  and  indefatigable 
activity  in  their  selfish  pursuits.  These  will  thrust  themselves  into  your  gov- 
ernment, and  be  your  rulers.  And  these,  too,  will  be  mistaken  in  the  expected 
happiness  of  their  situation;  for  their  vanquished  competitors,  of  the  same 
spirit  and  from  the  same  motives,  will  perpetually  be  endeavoring  to  distress 
their  administration,  thwart  their  measures,  and  render  them  odious  to  the 
peopled 

1  Professor  Corson.     Shakspere-Bacon  Controversy.     Quoted  in  The 
Forms  of  Discourse.     William  B.  Cairns,     p.  278. 

2  Macaulay.     Essays;   Warren  Hastings.     Quoted  in  Principles  of 
Rhetoric,    p.  374. 

8  Benjamin  Franklin.  Speech  before  the  Constitutional  Convention. 
Quoted  in  The  Forms  of  Discourse.  William  B.  Cairns,  p.  272. 


198  EVIDENCE 

6.  Tests  of  evidence.    Assign  for  study  in  the  Specimens  of  Argu- 
mentation, p.  Ill  ("The  first  witness")  to  p.  145  ("Gentlemen,  you 
have  now  —  ").     Discuss,  or  require  a  written  exercise  on  Erskine's 
use  of  the  tests  of  evidence.     The  tests  used  by  Mr.  Collins  in  his 
argument  on  the  relations  of  Swift  and  Stella  (cf.  Appendix)  may 
be  studied  instead  of  the  Erskine. 

7.  Tests  of  evidence.   Classify  and  discuss  the  following  fallacies :  — 

1.  Philip  VI  was  justified  in  his  opposition  to  the  Papacy,  for 

III.  According  to  his  lights  he  thought  the  Pope's  demands  unjust,  for 
C.  Philip  thought  the  Pope  was  officious,  for 

I.  Being  a  devout  Catholic,  he  would  not  have  resisted  him  had 
he  not  thought  so. 

2.  Intercollegiate  athletics  should  be  discouraged,  for  they  take  time  that 
might  be  spent  in  study. 

3.  When  thirteen  sit  together  at  table  some  one  always  dies  within  the 
year. 

4.  Naturalness  is  always  preferable  to  artificiality.    Therefore  the  natural 
method  of  teaching  the  languages  must  be  the  best. 

5.  When  the  election  of  Mr.  McKinley  seemed  probable,  wheat  went  up 
several  points.    Therefore  the  election  of  Mr.  McKinley  must  be  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  Western  farmers. . 

6.  "  They  [the  Boers]  have  actually  no  idea  of  civilization,"  says  Professor 
Smith.    The  Professor  must  have  failed  to  read  the  following: 

"  General  Joubert  at  once  despatched  a  letter  to  me  offering  a  safe  conduct 
to  doctors  and  ambulances  to  remove  the  wounded."  So  wires  General  White 
to  the  English  home  office  after  the  disaster  before  Ladysmith. 

7.  Night  must  be  the  cause  of  day,  for  it  invariably  precedes  it. 

8.  All  criminal  actions  ought  to  be  punished  by  law.    Prosecutions  for  theft 
are  criminal  actions.    Therefore,  prosecutions  for  theft  ought  to  be  punished 
by  law. 

9.  It  is  argued  that  the  proposed  method  of  cultivation  will  increase  the 
fertility  of  the  soil ;  but  the  fertility  of  the  soil  is  already  increasing,  therefore 
the  proposed  method  is  unnecessary. 

10.  The  works  of  Shakspere  cannot  be  read  in  a  day.    Hamlet  is  one  of  the 
works  of  Shakspere.    Therefore  Hamlet  cannot  be  read  in  a  day. 

11.  I  heard  him  say  "  That  scoundrel  of  a  D has  been  communicating 

plans."    Dreyfus'  name  begins  with  D.    He  is  under  suspicion.    Therefore, 
Dreyfus  communicated  the  plans. 


EXERCISES  199 

12.  No  designing  person  ought  to  be  trusted.    Engravers  are  by  profession 
designers.    Therefore,  engravers  ought  not  to  be  trusted. 

13.  He  who  calls  you  a  man  speaks  truly.    He  who  calls  you  a  fool  calls 
you  a  man.    Therefore,  he  who  calls  you  a  fool  speaks  truly. 

14.  Kipling  is  not  a  great  English  poet,  for  all  the  great  poets  are  dead. 

15.  "  But  a  man  must  live  "  was  the  excuse  made  to  Dr.  Johnson  for  a  very 
sharp  business  transaction.    "  Sir,  I  do  not  see  the  necessity,"  the  Doctor  replied. 

16.  The  English  system  of  training  for  track  athletics  is  superior  to  the 
American  because  the  over-estimation  of  victory  in  the  American  system  is 
a  bad  state  of  the  mind. 

17.  We  cannot  regard  copying  as  an  occasional  fall  from  grace,  because 
a.  What  a  man  does  once  he  will  do  again. 

6.  "  Once  a  thief  always  a  thief." 

8.  Tests  of  evidence.    Separating  the  class  into  groups,  divide 
among  these  the  thirteen  tests  of  evidence  tabulated  on  pp.  184-185. 
Let  each  group  bring  into  class  for  discussion  specimen  arguments 
which  may  be  answered  by  the  methods  of  attack  named  in  the  tests 
assigned  it. 

9.  Refutation.    Let   the   class   familiarize  itself  with   the  brief, 
printed  herewith,  of  part  of  the  speech  of  ^Eschines  vs.  Ctesiphon, 
and  with  the  citation  from  the  reply  of  Demosthenes  to  it.1    In  class 

1  "After  the  battle  of  Chaeronea  .  .  .  nothing  less  was  expected  than  an 
immediate  invasion  of  Attica  by  Philip ;  and  strong  measures  were  taken, 
under  the  advice  of  Hyperides,  to  put  the  city  in  a  posture  of  defense. 
One  of  the  most  important  was  the  repair  of  the  walls  and  ramparts. 
Demosthenes  at  this  time  held  the  office  of  conservator  of  walls,  having 
been  appointed  by  his  own  tribe  at  the  end  of  the  year  B.C.  339.  The 
reparation,  which  had  been  commenced  before,  but  suspended  during  the 
late  campaign,  was  now  vigorously  prosecuted.  He  himself  superintended 
the  work,  and  expended  on  it  three  talents  of  his  own  money,  beyond 
what  was  allowed  out  of  the  public  treasury.  .  .  .  Not  many  months 
after  the  battle,  Ctesiphon  introduced  a  bill  to  the  Council  of  Five  Hun- 
dred, proposing  to  reward  Demosthenes  for  his  gifts  of  money  to  the 
public,  and  for  his  general  integrity  and  good  conduct  as  a  statesman. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  very  object  of  this  measure  was  to  stop  the 
attacks  upon  Demosthenes  [by  the  party  favoring  the  Macedonians],  and 
to  give  him  the  opportunity,  in  case  it  should  be  opposed,  of  justifying 
the  whole  course  of  his  political  life.  With  that  view  was  inserted  the 
clause  eulogizing  his  general  character  as  a  statesman.  The  Macedonian 
party  naturally  regarded  this  clause  as  a  reflection  upon  themselves,  and 


200  EVIDENCE 

let  the  students  answer  these  questions:  (1)  Does  Demosthenes 
reply  to  all  the  charges  of  ./Eschines  ?  (2)  If  not,  has  he  good  cause 
to  omit?  (3)  Does  he  keep  to  the  order  of  ideas  of  ^Eschines  ?  (4)  If 
not,  is  there  justification  for  his  change  of  order,  and  does  he  gain 
by  it  ?  (5)  What  is  the  probative  value  of  the  answers  he  makes  ? 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  LEGAL  CHARGES  OF  ^ESCHINES 
AGAINST  DEMOSTHENES 

The  Decree  granting  a  crown  to  Demosthenes  breaks  the  law,  for 

A.  Demosthenes  cannot  make  the  excuse  that  he  was  to  be 
crowned  after  the  accounts  had  been  examined. 

B.  His  office  cannot  be  called  a  commission  or  agency,  rather 
than  a  magistracy,  for 

a  virtual  condemnation  of  the  policy  which  they  had  for  so  many  years 
espoused.  .  .  .  They  resolved  upon  a  course,  which  was  open  to  them 
according  to  the  Athenian  laws,  of  indicting  Ctesiphon  as  the  author  of 
an  illegal  measure.  His  bill,  having  been  approved  by  the  council,  and 
then  brought  before  the  popular  assembly,  was  passed  in  the  shape  of 
a  decree,  by  which  it  was  declared  to  be  the  will  of  the  council  and  people 
of  Athens,  '  that  Demosthenes  should  be  presented  with  a  golden  crown, 
and  that  a  proclamation  should  be  made  in  the  theatre,  at  the  great 
Dionysian  festival,  at  the  performance  of  the  new  tragedies,  announcing 
that  Demosthenes  was  rewarded  by  the  people  with  a  golden  crown  for 
his  integrity,  for  the  good-will  which  he  had  invariably  displayed  toward 
all  the  Greeks  and  toward  the  people  of  Athens,  and  also  for  his  mag- 
nanimity, and  because  he  had  ever  both  by  word  and  deed  promoted  the 
interests  of  the  people,  and  been  zealous  to  do  all  the  good  in  his  power.' 
This  decree,  as  the  opposite  party  conceived,  was  open  to  three  objections, 
two  of  which  were  chiefly  of  a  legal  nature ;  the  other,  while  it  equally 
assumed  a  legal  form,  called  in  question  the  real  merits  of  Ctesiphon's 
motion.  An  indictment,  embodying  all  the  objections,  was  preferred 
before  the  archon,  the  chief  magistrate  of  Athens,  to  whose  cognizance 
a  criminal  proceeding  of  this  kind  appertained.  The  prosecutor  was 
^Eschines,  the  second  of  Athenian  orators,  the  deadly  enemy  of  Demos- 
thenes, who  would  not  only  be  considered  by  his  party  as  the  fittest  person 
to  conduct  the  cause,  but  was  stimulated  to  it  by  every  motive  of  rivalry 
and  revenge.  .  .  .  The  indictment  of  Ctesiphon  was,  however,  suffered 
to  lie  dormant  for  more  than  seven  years,  and  was  not  brought  to  trial 
till  the  year  B.C.  330."  Condensed  from  pp.  1-3  of  The  Oration  on  the 
Crown  of  Demosthenes.  C.  R.  Kennedy.'  Hinds  &  Co. 


EXERCISES  201 

1.  It  is  not  true  that  those  only  are  magistrates  who  are 
appointed  by  lot  by  proper  officers,  or  elected  by  the 
people  in  proper  assemblies. 

C.  He  cannot  say  that  he  needed  to  give  no  account  for  spend- 
ing his  own  money,  for 

1.  A  public  officer  must  account  for  the  smallest  of  public 
money  expended. 

2.  Trierarchs,  for  instance,  are  expected  to  account  even  if 
they  have  not  spent  public  money. 

3.  The  objection  that  he  cannot  render  any  account  for  a 
gift  is  false,  for 

a.  The  law  provides  a  form  for  such  cases. 

D.  He  is  accountable,  for 

1.  He  was  the  manager  of  public  theatrical  funds. 

2.  He  was  inspector  of  fortifications. 

3.  His  objection  as  to  the  form  of  elections  (cf .  B)  does  not 
hold. 

E.  The  place  of  presentation  is  wrong,  for 

1.  The  law  names  a  different  place. 

2.  The  objections  as  to  the  festivals  do  not  hold,  for 

a.  It  is  odd  that  contradictory  laws  should  exist  side  by  side. 

b.  It  is  impossible  that  they  should  so  exist,  for 

x.  The  people  would  have  changed  one  or  the  other. 

c.  It  is  true  only  of  crowns  presented  by  Athenians  to 
foreign  states. 

ANSWER  OF  DEMOSTHENES  TO  THE  CHARGES 
OF  ^SCHINES 

I  conceive  it  remains  for  me  to  speak  of  the  proclamation  and  the  accounts : 
for,  that  I  acted  for  the  best — that  I  have  throughout  been  your  friend  and 
zealous  in  your  service  —  is  proved  abundantly,  methinks,  by  what  I  have  said 
already.  The  most  important  part  of  my  policy  and  administration  I  pass  by, 
considering  that  I  have  in  regular  course  to  reply  to  the  charge  of  illegality ; 
and  besides  —  though  I  am  silent  as  to  the  rest  of  my  political  acts  —  the 
knowledge  you  all  have  will  serve  me  equally  well. 

As  to  the  arguments  which  he  jumbled  together  about  the  counter-written 
laws,  I  hardly  suppose  you  comprehend  them  —  I  myself  could  not  understand 
the  greater  part.  However  I  shall  argue  a  just  case  in  a  straightforward  way. 
So  far  from  saying  that  I  am  not  accountable,  as  the  prosecutor  just  now  falsely 
asserted,  I  acknowledge  that  I  am  all  my  life  accountable  for  what  as  your 
statesman  1  have  undertaken  or  advised ;  but  for  what  I  have  voluntarily  given 


202  EVIDENCE 

to  the  people  out  of  my  own  private  fortune,  I  deny  that  I  am  any  day  account- 
able— do  you  hear,  ^Eschines?  —  nor  is  any  other  man,  let  him  even  be  one  of 
the  nine  archons.  For  what  law  is  so  full  of  injustice  and  inhumanity  as  to 
enact,  that  one  who  has  given  of  his  private  means,  and  done  an  act  of  gen- 
erosity and  munificence,  instead  of  having  thanks,  shall  be  brought  before 
malignants,  appointed  to  be  the  auditors  of  his  liberality  ?  None.  If  he  says 
there  is,  let  him  produce  it,  and  I  will  be  content  and  hold  my  tongue.  But 
there  is  none,  men  of  Athens.  The  prosecutor  in  his  malice,  because  I  gave 
some  of  my  own  money  when  I  superintended  the  theatre  fund,  says  —  "the 
Council  praised  him  before  he  had  rendered  his  account."  Not  for  any  matters 
of  which  I  had  an  account  to  render,  but  for  what  I  spent  of  my  own,  you 
malignant ! 

"  Oh,  but  you  were  a  Conservator  of  Walls !  "  says  he.  Yes ;  and  for  that 
reason  was  I  justly  praised,  because  I  gave  the  sums  expended  and  did  not 
charge  them.  A  charge  requires  auditors  and  examiners ;  a  donation  merits 
thanks  and  praise :  therefore  the  defendant  made  this  motion  in  my  favor. 

That  this  is  a  settled  principle  in  your  hearts  as  well  as  in  the  laws,  I  can 
show  by  many  proofs  easily.  First,  Nausicles  has  often  been  crowned  by  you 
for  what  he  expended  out  of  his  own  funds  while  he  was  general.  Secondly, 
Diotimus  was  crowned  for  his  present  of  shields ;  and  Charidemus  too.  Again, 
Neoptolemus  here,  superintendent  of  divers  works,  has  been  honored  for  his 
donations.  It  would  indeed  be  cruel,  if  a  man  holding  an  office  should  either, 
by  reason-of  his  office,  be  precluded  from  giving  his  own  money  to  the  state, 
or  have,  instead  of  receiving  thanks,  to  render  an  account  of  what  he  gave. 
To  prove  the  truth  of  my  statements,  take  and  read  me  the  original  decrees 
made  in  favor  of  these  men. 

A  DECREE 

"  Archon,  Demonicus  of  Phlyus.  On  the  twenty-sixth  of  Boedromion,  with 
the  sanction  of  the  council  and  people,  Callias  of  Phrearrii  moved:  That  the 
council  and  people  resolve  to  crown  Nausicles,  general  of  foot,  for  that,  there 
being  two  thousand  Athenian  troops  of  the  line  in  Imbrus,  for  the  defense  of 
the  Athenian  residents  in  that  island,  and  Philo  of  the  finance  department 
being  by  reason  of  storms  unable  to  sail  and  pay  the  troops,  he  advanced  money 
of  his  own,  and  did  not  ask  the  people  for  it  again ;  and  that  the  crown  be 
proclaimed  at  the  Dionysian  festival,  at  the  new  tragedies." 

ANOTHER  DECREE 

"Callias  of  Phrearrii  moved,  the  presidents  declaring  it  to  be  with  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  council :  Whereas  Charidemus,  general  of  foot,  having  been  sent  to 
Salamis,  he  and  Diotimus,  general  of  horse,  after  certain  of  the  troops  had  in 
the  skirmish  by  the  river  been  disarmed  by  the  enemy,  did  at  their  own 
expense  arm  the  young  men  with  eight  hundred  shields :  It  hath  been  resolved 
by  the  council  and  people  to  crown  Charidemus  and  Diotimus  with  a  golden 
crown,  and  to  proclaim  it  at  the  great  Panathenaic  festival,  during  the 
gymnastic  contest,  and  at  the  Dionysian  festival,  at  the  exhibition  of  the 
new  tragedies :  the  proclamation  to  be  given  in  charge  to  the  judges,  the  presi- 
dents, and  the  prize-masters." 


EXERCISES  203 

Each  of  the  men,  <35schines,  was  accountable  for  the  office  which  he  held, 
but  not  accountable  for  the  matters  in  respect  of  which  he  was  crowned.  No 
more  then  am  I;  for  surely  I  have  the  same  rights,  under  the  same  circum- 
stances, as  other  men.  Have  I  given  money  ?  I  am  praised  for  that,  not  being 
accountable  for  what  I  gave.  Did  I  hold  office  ?  Yes ;  and  I  have  rendered 
an  account  of  my  official  acts,  not  of  my  bounties.  Oh,  but  I  was  guilty  of 
malpractices  in  office !  And  you,  present  when  the  auditors  brought  me  up, 
accused  me  not? 

To  show  you  that  he  himself  bears  testimony  to  my  having  been  crowned 
for  what  I  had  no  account  to  render  of,  take  and  read  the  whole  decree  drawn 
up  in  my  favor.  By  the  portions  of  the  bill  which  he  never  indicted  it  will 
appear  that  his  prosecution  is  vexatious.  Read. 

THE  DECREE 

"  In  the  archonship  of  Euthycles,  on  the  twenty-second  of  Pyanepsion,  in 
the  presidency  of  the  GEneian  tribe,  Ctesiphon,  son  of  Leosthenes  of  Anaphlys- 
tus,  moved :  Whereas  Demosthenes,  son  of  Demosthenes  of  Paeania,  having  been 
superintendent  of  the  repair  of  the  walls,  and  having  expended  on  the  works 
three  additional  talents  out  of  his  own  money,  hath  given  that  sum  to  the 
people ;  and  whereas,  having  been  appointed  treasurer  of  the  theoric  fund,  he 
hath  given  to  the  theoric  officers  of  the  tribes  a  hundred  minas  toward  the  Sac- 
rifices, the  council  and  people  of  Athens  have  resolved  to  honor  Demosthenes, 
son  of  Demosthenes  of  Paeania,  with  public  praise,  for  the  goodness  and  gener- 
osity which  he  has  shown  throughout  on  every  occasion  toward  the  people  of 
Athens,  and  to  crown  him  with  a  golden  crown,  and  to  proclaim  the  crown  in 
the  theatre,  at  the  Dionysian  festival,  at  the  performance  of  the  new  tragedies: 
the  proclamation  to  be  given  in  charge  to  the  prize-master." 

These  were  my  donations ;  none  of  which  have  you  indicted :  the  rewards 
which  the  council  says  I  deserve  for  them  are  what  you  arraign.  To  receive 
the  gifts  then  you  confess  to  be  legal;  the  requital  of  them  you  indict  for 
illegality.  In  the  name  of  heaven!  what  sort  of  person  can  a  monster  of 
wickedness  and  malignity  be,  if  not  such  a  person  as  this? 

Concerning  the  proclamation  in  the  theatre,  I  pass  over  the  fact,  that  thou- 
sands of  thousands  have  been  proclaimed,  and  I  myself  have  been  crowned 
often  before.  But  by  the  Gods!  are  you  so  perverse  and  stupid,  JSschines,  as 
not  to  be  able  to  reflect,  that  the  party  crowned  has  the  same  glory  from  the 
crown  wherever  it  be  published,  and  that  the  proclamation  is  made  in  the 
theatre  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  confer  the  crown  ?  For  the  hearers  are 
all  encouraged  to  render  service  to  the  state,  and  praise  the  parties  who  show 
their  gratitude  more  than  the  party  crowned.  Therefore  has  our  commonwealth 
enacted  this  law.  Take  and  read  me  the  law  itself. 

THE  LAW 

"Whensoever  any  of  the  townships  bestow  crowns,  proclamations  thereof 
shall  be  made  by  them  in  their  several  townships,  unless  where  any  are  crowned 
by  the  people  of  Athens  or  the  council ;  and  it  shall  be  lawful  for  them  to  be 
proclaimed  in  the  theatre  at  the  Dionysian  festival." 


204  EVIDENCE 

Do  you  hear,  ^schines,  the  law  distinctly  saying  —  "  unless  where  any  are 
voted  by  the  people  or  the  council;  such  may  be  proclaimed"?  Why  then, 
wretched  man,  do  you  play  the  pettifogger?  Why  manufacture  arguments? 
Why  don't  you  take  hellebore  for  your  malady?  Are  you  not  ashamed  to 
bring  on  a  cause  for  spite,  and  not  for  any  offense  ?  —  to  alter  some  laws,  and 
to  garble  others,  the  whole  of  which  should  in  justice  be  read  to  persons  sworn 
to  decide  according  to  the  laws  ?  And  you  that  act  thus  describe  the  qualities 
which  belong  to  a  friend  of  the  people,  as  if  you  had  ordered  a  statue  according 
to  contract,  and  received  it  without  having  what  the  contract  required ;  or  as 
if  friends  of  the  people  were  known  by  words,  and  not  by  acts  and  measures ! 
And  you  bawl  out,  regardless  of  decency,  a  sort  of  cart-language,  applicable 
to  yourself  and  your  race,  not  to  me.1 

10.  Refutation.    After  assigning  the  brief  on  Capital  Punishment 
(cf.  Appendix)  for  study,  ask  the  class  to  state,  orally  or  on  paper, 
(1)  whether  the  introduction  is  complete,  and  if  not  what  should  be 
added ;  (2)  whether  in  rebuttal  all  the  ideas  given  as  main  headings 
must  be  answered,  and  if  not,  why  not ;  (3)  whether  all  the  sub-ideas 
within  a  division  must  be  treated,  and  if  not,  why  not ;  (4)  whether 
any  different  ordering  of  the  ideas  in  rebuttal  will  help,  and  why; 
(5)  what  reply  the  class  will  attempt  to  make  to  the  case  as  rear- 
ranged and  condensed. 

11.  Refutation.    It  is  helpful  to  divide  the  class  into  groups  of  two, 
giving  one  student  the  affirmative,  the  other  the  negative  of  some 
proposition.    When  the  forensics  come  in,  let  each  man  criticise  his 
opponent's  manuscript  on  the  following  matters :  (1)  Is  your  oppo- 
nent's approach  to  the  case  the  one  you  expected?     (2)  Has  he 
advanced  essential  ideas  for  which  you  are  unprepared  ?     (3)  Is  the  < 
order  of  his  ideas  what  you  anticipated,  better,  or  one  which  you 
wish  to  shift  in  refuting  his  case?     (4)  Can  you  justify  changing 
his  order?     (5)  Do  you  need  to  take  up  all  his  ideas?     (6)  If  not, 
what  can  you  subordinate  or  cut  out,  and  why?     (7)  What  effect  on 
your  case  has  his  attack?    (8)  Have  you  provided  him  in  your  manu- 
script with  ideas  not  treated  by  him,  and  if  so,  how  much  are  these 
likely  to  affect  his  rewriting  of  his  work?     (9)  What  answers  must 
you  now  make  to  his  case  as  rearranged  and  condensed?    These 
criticisms  should  be  read  in  connection  with  the  argument  commented 
on.    They  may  be  returned  to  the  writers  with  their  own  arguments, 
and  students  should  be  required  in  rewriting  their  first  drafts  of  the 
arguments  to  show  profit  from  their  criticism  of  their  opponent's 
work  and  from  the  instructor's  comments  on  that  criticism. 

1  Demosthenes  on  the  Crown.    Kennedy.    David  McKay.    Philadelphia. 


CHAPTER  IV 

BRIEF-DRAWING 

SECTION  1  —  WHAT  THE  BRIEF  is 

The  purpose  of  the  brief.  In  the  .process  of  investiga- 
tion  the  student  has  become  generally  familiar  with  his 
subject  through  his  preliminary  reading,  and  in  his  special 
issues  has  obtained  a  definite  statement  of  the  nature  and 
extent  of  what  he  wishes  to  prove.  Through  his  knowl- 
edge of  what  constitutes  evidence,  from  what  sources  it 
may  be  derived,  what  forms  it  assumes,  and  by  what  tests 
it  should  be  judged,  he  is  prepared  to  collect  intelligently 
the  necessary  material  for  his  argument.  Before,  however, 
he  can  present  that  material  in  the  fashion  best  adapted  for 
convincing,  he  should  master  the  principles  of  brief-drawing. 
Such  mastery  will  give  him  a  definite  and  convenient  form 
in  which  he  may  present  his  case  in  its  full  logical  force 
for  the  examination  and  criticism  of  a  second  person  before 
he  undertakes  the  presentation  of  his  argument  in  literary 
form.  But  his  brief  will  do  more  than  this.  It  will  aid  hini 
in  coordinating  and  subordinating  accurately,  for  it  will 
necessitate  careful  discrimination  between  material  that  is 
primary  and  material  that  is  subsidiary;  it  will  aid  him 
in  arranging  effectively  the  ideas  so  distinguished ;  and  it 
will  offer  him  a  convenient  device  for  sorting  and  group- 
ing his  evidence,  that  is,  the  facts  and  reasons  which  he 
is  to  make  use  of  in  convincing  his  readers.  To  accomplish 

205 


206  BRIEF-DRAWING 

these  ends  the  brief  must  be  a  summary  that  combines 
clearness  and  conciseness  of  exposition,  and  is  especially 
adapted  for  the  ordination,  arrangement,  and  grouping  of 
evidence.  In  this  chapter  will  be  explained  one  system  of 
brief-drawing  that  has  proved  useful  in  securing  these  ends. 
The  origin  of  the  brief.  A  student  can  hardly  have 
analyzed  his  question  without  having  formed  in  his  own 
mind  a  rough  plan  of  his  argument.  He  must  at  least 
know  the  main  arguments  by  which  the  question  has  been 
discussed  in  the  past,  and  he  must  have  determined  in  his 
special  issues  the  lines  upon  which  his  own  argument  is 
to  be  conducted.  The  letter  from  Lincoln  to  McClellan 
shows  admirably  such  special  issues  in  a  complicated  case. 
An  outline  of  the  investigation  and  preliminary  analysis 
which  must  have  preceded,  and  of  McClellan's  answer,  — 
if  he  tried  to  convince  Lincoln  of  the  superiority  of  his 
plan,  —  would  give  a  complete  brief  of  which  these  keen 
special  issues  would  be  the  corner  stone.  Given  these 
clear  and  definite  issues,  a  student  of  the  campaigns  of  the 
Civil  War  could  construct  an  elaborate  argument. 

Illustration  1 
President  Lincoln  to  General  McClellan 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  WASHINGTON, 

February  3,  1862. 
MAJOR-GENERAL  MCCLELLAN  : 

My  dear  Sir :  You  and  I  have  distinct  and  different  plans 
for  a  movement  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  —  yours  to  be 
down  the  Chesapeake,  up  the  Rappahannock  to  Urbana,  and 
across  land  to  the  terminus  of  the  railroad  on  the  York  River ; 
mine  to  move  directly  to  a  point  on  the  railroad  southwest  of 
Manassas. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BRIEF  207 

If  you  will  give  me  satisfactory  answers  to  the  following 
questions,  I  shall  gladly  yield  my  plan  to  yours. 

First.  Does  not  your  plan  involve  a  greatly  larger  expendi- 
iture  of  time  and  money  than  mine  ? 

Second.  Wherein  is  a  victory  more  certain  by  your  plan 
ithan  mine  ? 

Third.  Wherein  is  a  victory  more  valuable  by  your  plan 
than  mine? 

Fourth.  In  fact,  would  it  not  be  less  valuable  in  this,  that 
it  would  break  no  great  line  of  the  enemy's  communications, 
!  while  mine  would  ? 

Fifth.  In  case  of  disaster,  would  not  a  retreat  be  more 
difficult  by  your  plan  than  mine  ? 

Yours  truly, 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 
MAJOR-GENERAL  McCLELLAN.1 

Instead  of  such  an  outline,  however,  which  although 
fragmentary  is  good  as  far  as  it  goes,  the  beginner  in 
brief-drawing  too  often  tries  to  give  some  clew  to  the 
nature  of  the  evidence  to  follow,  in  some  such  way  as  do 
the  writers  of  the  two  following  sets  of  speaker's  notes. 
However  serviceable  these  may  have  been  for  the  purpose 
for  which  they  were  intended,  as  briefs  they  are  of  little 
value,  for  they  are  not  written  with  the  needs  of  the  reader 
continually  in  view,  as  a  brief  should  be. 

1  "General  McClellan  had  succeeded  General  Scott  on  November  1, 
1861,  as  Commander-in-Chief  (under  the  President)  of  all  the  armies 
of  the  United  States.  On  January  31,  1862,  the  President  had  issued 
his  '  Special  War  Order  No.  1,'  directing  a  forward  movement  of  the 
Army  of  the  Potomac.  This  order  conflicted  with  plans  which  McClel- 
lan had  formed,  and  he  remonstrated."  Little  Masterpieces,  Lincoln. 
B.  Perry,  p.  109. 


208  BRIEF-DRAWING 

Illustration  2 

A  brief  by  Abraham  Lincoln  in  a  case  to  recover  for  th< 
widow  of  a  Revolutionary  veteran  the  sum  of  $200  which  j 
rascally  agent  had  retained  out  of  $400  of  pension  money.1 

"  No  contract.  —  Not  professional  services.  —  Unreasonable 
charge.  —  Money  retained  by  Deft  not  given  to  Pl'ff.  —  Revo 
lutionary  War.  —  Describe  Valley  Forge  privations.  —  PPfPj 
husband.  —  Soldier  leaving  home  for  army.  —  Skin  Deft.  — 
Close." 

Illustration  3  —  A  student's  notes  for  debate 

That  Political  Union  with  Cuba  would  be  Desirable  for  the 
United  States 

INTRODUCTION 

A.  Origin  of  the  Question  in  Spanish  War. 

B.  Definition  of  Political  Union. 

C.  Tests  of  Desirability. 

D.  Clash  in  Opinion.     Aff.     Neg. 

E.  Matter  to  be  ruled  out. 

F.  Special  Issues. 

BRIEF  PROPER 

A.  Undesirable  on  Military  grounds. 

B.  Undesirable  on  Political  grounds. 

C.  Undesirable  on  Social  grounds. 

D.  Independence  of  Cuba. 

CONCLUSION 

Even  the  following  skeleton  brief  has  little  usefulness 
except  for  the  writer  or  some  one  fully  informed  as  to  the 
arguments  in  the  case  and  the  evidence  at  the  writer's 
disposal. 

1  Specimens  of  the  Forms  of  Discourse.     E.  H.  Lewis,    p.  233. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BRIEF  209 

Brief  A  1 

Japanese  Control  would  be  better  than  Russian  Control  for 
the  Political  and  Economic  Interests  of  Corea 

I.  The  outcome  of  the  present  war. 
II.  Agreement  of  both  sides  that 

A.  Corea  cannot  be  independent. 

B.  Will  be  controlled  by  Japan  or  Russia. 

C.  Other  nations  will  keep  out. 

III.  Agreed  economic  interests:  mining,  agriculture,  com- 
merce. 

IV.  Agreed  tests  of  political  interests :   adaptability,  effi- 
ciency, and  progressiveness. 

V.  The  affirmative  contentions. 
VI.  The  negative  contentions. 
VII.  The  special  issues  are  twofold : 

A.  Which  government  would  be  better  for  the  indus- 
trial development  of  Corea  in  mining,  agriculture, 
and  commerce  ? 

B.  Which  government  would  give  Corea  the  greater 
political  benefit  in  the  adaptability,  efficiency,  and 
progressiveness  of  its  government  ? 

VIII.  Japanese  control  would  be  better  for  Corea  politically, 
for 

A.  The  government  would  be  better  adapted  to  it,  for 

1.  It  would  be  more  acceptable. 

2.  It  would  have  greater  powers  of  assimilation. 

B.  The  Japanese  government  is  fully  as  efficient  as  the 
Russian,  for 

1.  Japan  has   shown  financial  ability  of  the  first 
order. 

2.  Against  the  stupendous  progress  of  Japan,  Russia 
can  only  show  the  Trans-Siberian  Railroad. 

C.  The  government  would  be  more  progressive  under 
Japanese  control,  for 


210  BRIEF-DRAWING 

1.  Japan  would  do  more  to  foster  education. 

2.  Japan  would  do  more  to  foster  self-government. 
IX.  Japanese  control  would  be  better  for  Corea  economically, 

for 

A.  Japan  would  develop  more  the  Corean  industries  of 
agriculture  and  mining,  for 

1.  She  would  give  Corea  a  better  market. 

2.  Japan  would  fill  the  country  faster  with  settlers. 

3.  Japan  would   furnish   more   capital  for  Corean 
development. 

X.  Therefore  Japanese  control  would  be  better  than  Rus- 
sian control  for  the  political  and  economic  interests  of 
Corea. 

Helpful  as  one  can  see  that  Brief  A  1  might  be  as  a 
guide  in  speaking,  as  a  brief  it  is  very  defective.  In  the 
first  place,  because  it  is  not  divided  into  Introduction,  Brief 
Proper,  and  Conclusion,  it  is  not  clear  at  once  what  the 
writer  is  doing  or  where  his  argument  really  begins,  though 
the  good  phrasing  of  VII  and  VIII  minimizes  the  difficulty. 
I  is  hopelessly  vague  and  gives  only  the  information  that 
at  the  outset  the  writer  intends  for  some  purpose  or  other 
to  make  a  reference  to  the  Russo-Japanese  War.  II  is 
phrased  more  clearly  and  is  definite.  Ill  and  IV,  while 
they  are  definite,  are  clumsy  and  obscure  in  their  phrasing. 
V  and  VI  are  vague  notes  and  simply  state  the  writer's 
intention  to  give  in  his  speech  some  useful  information 
which  readers  cannot  at  present  even  guess  at.  VII,  how- 
ever, gives  an  inkling  that  the  two  sides  are  to  take  issue 
squarely,  each  contending  that  the  control  which  he  favors 
will  be  better  in  respect  to  all  the  economic  and  political 
interests  agreed  upon.  VIII  and  A,  B,  and  C  under  VIII 
are  satisfactory ;  but  when  we  come  to  1  and  2  under  A 
we  feel  that  the  brief  has  again  become  sketchy,  for  we 


THE  RELATION  OF  BRIEF  TO  OUTLINE         211 

demand  proof  that  the  Japanese  government  would  really 
be  more  acceptable,  and  that  it  would  surely  have  greater 
powers  of  assimilation.  So  under  B  we  wish  evidence  of 
Japan's  financial  ability  and  some  reasoning  to  show  that 
there  has  been  anything  like  "  stupendous  progress.'' 
Indeed  throughout  this  skeleton  of  a  good  brief  the 
subheadings  of  the  third  rank  (1,  2,  3,  etc.)  are  mere 
assertions  which  beg  the  very  questions  the  writer  has 
undertaken  in  VII  to  argue,  but  which  if  proved  will  go 
far  to  make  his  case  a  strong  one.  The  reader's  position, 
then,  must  be  one  of  suspended  judgment,  because  he  can- 
not be  sure  that  the  special  issues  represent  exactly  the 
points  under  contention  and  because  much  evidence  upon 
which  a  judgment  might  be  based  is  omitted. 

Its  relation  to  the  outline.  Such  outlines  as  these,  there- 
fore, are  of  slight  value  to  one  who  though  unfamiliar 
with  the  evidence  on  the  question  yet  wishes  to  form  a 
just  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  argument  outlined.  Their 
usefulness  is  limited  to  the  writer  himself  in  supplying 
him  with  a  memorandum  of  the  general  structure  and  with 
pockets,  so  to  speak,  into  which  he  may  put  evidence 
bearing  on  the  several  ideas.  An  outline  does  not  become 
a  brief  until  it  does  very  much  more  than  this.  The  first 
distinguishing  mark  of  a  brief  is  that,  whether  it  be  written 
for  the  teacher  or  the  judge,  it  shall  supply  him  with  a  basis 
for  an  intelligent  estimate  of  the  convincingness  of  the 
argument  to  follow.  To  accomplish  this  the  brief  must 
make  clear  the  results  of  analysis.  It  must  state  the  propo- 
sition at  the  outset ;  if  the  needs  of  the  audience  require, 
give  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion,  the  origin  of 
the  question,  and  the  clash  in  opinion;  and  state  clearly 
what  are  the  special  issues  which  proof  of  the  proposition 


212  BRIEF-DRAWING 

involves,  showing  why  those  issues  are  legitimately  selected. 
Not  until  then  can  the  writer  safely  advance  to  his  proof. 
In  presenting  this  in  clear  and  concise  form  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  reader,  the  writer  meets  with  the  second 
distinguishing  mark  of  the  special  form  of  outline,  called 
a  brief;  for  he  finds  that  while  he  is  presenting  his  proof 
clearly  and  concisely  to  his  critic  he  successfully  ordi- 
nates,  arranges,  and  groups  his  evidence. 

A  brief,  then,  is  that  subdivision  of  the  genus  outline 
which  furnishes  to  a  critic  a  clear  and  concise  exposition 
of  the  convincingness  of  the  argument,  and  at  the  same 
time  aids  the  writer  in  the  ordination,  arrangement,  and 
grouping  of  evidence. 

The  three  divisions  of  a  brief.  This  specialized  form 
of  outline  called  a  brief  has  ordinarily  three  divisions 
corresponding  to  the  divisions  which  we  shall  later  find 
convenient  in  the  literary  argument:  the  Introduction, 
the  Brief  Proper,  and  the  Conclusion. 

The  Introduction  should  state  very  concisely  in  short, 
correlated  sentences  whatever  is  necessary  to  an  under- 
standing of  the  discussion :  namely,  what  is  significant  in 
the  history  and  definition  of  the  question ;  what  matter,  if 
any,  is  admitted  by  both  sides,  or  for  the  purposes  of  the 
argument  is  waived  or  granted ;  and,  by  the  exclusion  of 
what  is  irrelevant  or  unimportant,  should  make  definite 
the  group  of  ideas  upon  which  the  decision  of  the  question 
depends  (the  special  issues). 

The  Brief  Proper  should  make  clear  to  any  intelligent 
reader  by  a  series  of  concise  headings  and  subheadings 
the  development  of  the  argument  by  which  the  writer 
expects  to  prove  what  he  has  undertaken  in  his  special 
issues.  The  writer  should  first  select  the  main  ideas  of  his 


THE  THREE  DIVISIONS  OF  A  BRIEF  213 

proof,  which  will  rarely  vary  from  those  already  selected 
for  the  special  issues.  These  ideas  hev  should  so  arrange 
that  his  brief  presents  first  the  ideas  that  logically  come 
first,  and  last  those  that  are  logically  last,  and  that  in  its 
structure  the  rhetorical  principles  of  coherence  and  climax 
are  observed.  Under  these  main  ideas,  in  accurate  subor- 
dination, should  be  arranged  the  evidence  by  which  the 
truth  of  these  main  headings  is  to  be  established.  For 
greater  clearness  the  coordination  and  the  subordination 
of  all  the  ideas  should  be  distinctly  correlated  by  numbers 
and  letters. 

The  Conclusion  usually  is  no  more  than  a  concise 
summary  of  the  argument,  in  order  to  show  at  a 
glance  the  main  ideas  which  have  led  to  the  decision, 
as  in  Brief  C. 

A  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  parts,  marked  "Intro- 
duction," "  Brief  Proper ,"  "Conclusion"  (Rule  I.) 

The  following  revision  of  part  of  Brief  A  1  shows  what 
is  gained  by  observance  of  the  foregoing  principles. 

Brief  A 

RESOLVED:  Japanese  Control  would  promote  the  Political 
and  Economic  Interests  of  Corea  more  than  would  Rus- 
sian Control 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  The  outcome  of  the  present  war  between  Japan  and 

Russia  presents  many  interesting  possibilities. 
II.  For  the  purpose  of  this  debate  it  is  agreed  that  ' 

A.  Corea  is  too  weak  to  remain  independent. 

B.  It  will  become  a  province  completely  controlled  by 
Japan  or  by  Russia. 

C.  Other  nations  will  not  object. 


214  BRIEF-DRAWING 

III.  It  is  agreed  that  the  economic  interests  to  be  considered 
are  mining,  agriculture,  and  commerce,  in  that 

A.  They  are  the  most  important  interests  of  Corea. 

IV.  It  is  agreed  that  the  political  interests  of  a  dependen- 
nation  are  to  be  judged  by  the  adaptability,  efficiency 
and  progressiveness  of  the  government  imposed  upoi 
them. 

V.  The  affirmative  make  the  following  contentions : 

A.  Japanese  control  would  be  better  for  the  economi< 
interests  of   Corea    (mining,    agriculture,   and   com 
merce)  in  that 

1.  Japan  would  maintain  the  Open  Door. 

2.  Japanese  control  would  furnish  more  capital  fo: 
Corean  development. 

3.  Japan  furnishes  the  best  and  most  natural  marke 
for  Corean  products. 

B.  Japanese  control  would  be  better  politically  in  that 

1.  The  government  would  be  more  adapted  to  Corea  ii 
acceptability  and  assimilating  power. 

2.  The  government  would  be  more  efficient  in  respec 
to  financial  management  and  the  development  o 
farming  and  navy.- 

3.  The   government  would   be   more  progressive  ii 
respect  to  education  and  the  development  of  self 
government. 

VI.  The  negative  maintains  that  Russian  control  would  b 
better  than  Japanese  control  in  the  respects  mentione( 
above.      ,,. 
VII.  The  issues  are  : 

A.  Which  government  would  be  better  for  the  industria 
development  (mining,  agriculture,  and  commerce)  o 
Corea  ? 

B.  Which   government  would   give   Corea   the   greate 
political  benefit  in  the  respects  mentioned  in  V,  1 
(adaptability,  efficiency,  progressiveness)? 


THE  THREE   DIVISIONS  OF  A  BRIEF  215 


BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  Japanese  control  would  be  better  for  Corea  politically,  for 
A.  The  government  would  be  better  adapted  to  Corea,  for 

1.  It  would  be  more  acceptable,  for 

(a)  The  Coreans  are  already  accustomed  to  Jap- 
anese methods  and  institutions,  for 
(1)  Japan  has  had  a  dominant  political  influ- 
ence in  Corea  for  many  years,  for 
(x)  This  is  instanced  by  the  fact  that  dur- 
ing the  recent  insurrections  and  disor- 
ders in  Corea  (1895)  Japan  was  called 
in  to  establish  order  and  to  remodel 
Corean  institutions. 

(&)   Russia  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  Coreans, 
for 

(1)  There   have   been   no   previous   relations 
between  the  two  peoples. 

(2)  They  are  opposed  in  temper  and  character, 
for 

*  (x)  The  Coreans  are  an  Eastern  people. 
(?/)  The  Russians  are  a  Western  people. 

2.  It  would  have  greater  powers  of  assimilation,  for 
(a)  The  Japanese  and  Coreans  are  nearly  related 

peoples. 

(£)   The  Russians  and  Coreans  are  not. 
(c)   Corea  is  familiar  with  the  Japanese,  for 

(1)  The  countries  are  near  neighbors. 

(2)  There  are  large  numbers  of  Japanese  set- 
tled in  Corea. 

(3)  The  Japanese  have  important  commercial 
interests  in  Corea,  for 

(x)  The  railroad  and  telegraph  lines  were 

built  by  Japan. 
(?/)   Three-fourths  of  the  coastwise  trade 

is  carried  under  the  Japanese  flag. 


216  BRIEF-DRAWING 

(4)  The    Japanese    established    the    present 

Corean  judicial  and  police  systems. 
(d)  The  Coreans  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Russians. 

B.  The  Japanese  government  is  fully  as  efficient  as  the 
Russian,  for 

1.  Japan  has  shown  financial  ability  of  the  first  order, 
for 

(a)  She  did  fine  work  in  Formosa,  for 

(1)  In  five  years  (1895-1900)  she  reduced  her 
subsidies  to  Formosa  from  9,000,000  yen 
(1  yen  =  $.60)  a  year  to  about  2,000,000 
yen  a  year,  and  increased  the  income  of 
the  Forinosan  government  from  2,000,000 
to  between  13,000,000  and  14,000,000  yen 
a  year. 

(b)  She  has  been  doing  fine  work  in  Yezo,  for 
(1)  She  "civilized"  this  "wilderness"  in  a 

very  few  years,  building  roads,  factories, 
and  cities. 

(c)  She  has  managed  her  own  government  institu- 
tions well,  for 

(1)  This  fact  is  instanced  by  the  300  miles 
of  railroad  which  belong  to  the  govern- 
ment and  which  pay  $2,500,000  net  profit 
annually. 

(d)  She  showed  great  ability  in  the  transition  of 
1870,  for 

(1)  She  developed,  in  a  very  short  time,  a 
sound  financial  administration  out  of  the 
scattered  elements  of  her  old  feudalism. 

2.  Against  the  stupendous  progress  of  Japan,  Russia 
can  only  show  the  Trans-Siberian  Railroad. 

C.  The  government  would  be  more  progressive  under 
Japanese  control,  for 

1.  Japan  would  foster  education  more  in  Corea,  for 


THE  INTRODUCTION  IN  A  BRIEF  217 

(a)  Japan  has  shown  wonderful  progress  in  this 
respect,  for 

(1)  Japan  now  has  26,856  primary  schools, 
297  technical  schools,  54  normal  schools 
(besides  many  others  of  different  character 
—  blind,  etc.),  and  2  universities. 

(b)  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  Kussia  has  no 
public  educational  system  to  transplant  into 
Corea. 

2.  Japan  would  foster  self-government  more,  for 

(a)  Japan's  policy  is  in  this  direction,  for 

(1)  She  elevated  herself  in  eighteen  years 
(1871-1889)  from  a  mediaeval  absolutism 
to  a  modern  constitutional  democratic  gov- 
ernment. 

(b)  Russia's  policy  is  repression,  for 
(1)  Her  whole  empire  shows  this. 

(c)  If  Russia  obtained  Corea  she  would  not  become 
more  enlightened,  for 

(1)  The  acquisition  of  Corea  would  strengthen 
her  military  absolutism,  for 
(x)  It  would  be  a  victory  for  that  policy. 
II.  Japanese  control  would  be  better  for  Corea  economically, 
for 
A.  etc.,  etc. 

If  now  the  three  customary  divisions  of  a  brief  are 
examined  in  detail,  the  work  that  each  should  do  and  the 
faults  in  each  to  which  unskilled  writers  are  liable  will 
become  clear. 

SECTION  2 —  THE  INTRODUCTION 

Its  expository  purpose.  The  test  of  a  good  introduction 
is  that  it  shall  supply  the  reader  with  whatever  information 
will  be  needed  by  him  before  he  can  read  the  brief  proper 


218  BRIEF-DRAWING 

understandingly.  If  through  carelessness  or  an  inability 
to  understand  accurately  the  reader's  ignorance  of  the  sub- 
ject the  writer  fails  to  give  the  necessary  information,  the 
significance  of  the  headings  of  the  brief  proper  will  not  be  at 
once  apparent  and  confusion  will  result.  For  example : 

Brief  Bl 

The,  Lodge  Bill  is  the  Best  Method  for  Excluding 
Undesirable  Immigrants 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  Origin  of  question. 
II.  Definition  of  the  Lodge  Bill. 

III.  Definition  of  the  three  classes  of  undesirable  immigrants. 

IV.  The  negative's  proposal. 

V.  The  extraneous  and  admitted  matter. 
VI.  The  special  issue  is  which  measure  excludes  the  greater 
number  of  those  belonging  to  the  three  classes  of  unde- 
sirable immigrants. 

BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  The  South  Italians,  Hungarians,  Poles,  etc.,  would  be  the 

nationalities  largely  excluded  by  the  Lodge  Bill. 
II.  These  nationalities  are  just  the  ones  which  belong  to  the 

three  undesirable  classes. 

III.  Even  if  the  negative  measure  would  have  shut  out  more 
of  these  under  the  conditions  ^of  1902,  still  the  negative 
measure  would  be  easy  to  evade  in  future. 

The  introduction  to  Brief  B  1  is  unworthy  of  the  name, 
for  a  reader  cannot  begin  to  understand  even  the  main 
headings  of  the  brief  proper  until  he  knows  at  least  what 
the  Lodge  Bill  is  and  what  is  the  substitute  which  in  the 
opinion  of  the  other  side  is  to  be  more  effective.  Even 


EXPOSITORY  PURPOSE  OF  INTRODUCTION       219 

with  this  information  he  will  want  to  know  what  classes 
of  immigrants  he  is  to  consider  undesirable,  and  II  suggests 
that  it  may  be  very  important  that  he  know  what  is  the 
extraneous  and  admitted  matter.  Clearly  this  introduction 
does  not  introduce. 

The  writer  should  exercise  care  not  to  make  the  intro- 
duction a  preliminary  argument,1  and  especially  to  avoid 
provoking  discussion  involving  directly  the  proposition 
under  dispute.  A  writer  cannot  too  soon  realize  that  he 
is  writing  his  argument  not  for  those  who  agree  with  him 
but  for  those  who  need  to  be  convinced,  and  that  for  such 
the  clearest  introduction  is  one  that  does  not  produce 
disagreement  until  the  argument  proper  is  reached.  More- 
over a  writer  should  be  careful  not  to  put  into  the  intro- 
duction unessential  details  which  will  be  needed  later  in 
the  brief  proper,  for  this  renders  the  introduction  heavy 
and  makes  the  evidence  less  effective  when  it  is  used  the 
second  time.  The  following  illustrates  these  faults. 

Illustration  4 

Was  it  Wise  for  Adams  to  send  the  Envoys  to  France  in 

1799? 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  The  relations  between  France  and  the  United  States  in 
1799  were  as  follows  : 

A.  France  had  held  the  United  States  in  contempt,  and 
had  insulted  the  nation. 

1.  She  had  done  so  by  the  conduct  of  her  own  min- 
isters in  the  United  States. 

1  At  times  argument  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  terms  or  the  proper 
basis  for  discussion  may  be  wise,  but  a  skillful  writer  will  usually  conduct 
such  argument  as  though  it  were  merely  exposition. 


220  BRIEF-DRAWING 

(a)  In  1793  Genet  had  acted  in  a  presumptuous 
and  overbearing  manner,  trying  to  fit  out  ships 
and  recruit  men  for  France,  as  if  the  United 
States  were  a  dependent  province. 

(6)  Adet  had  tried  to  influence  the  election  of  1796. 

2.  She  had  done  so  by  her  treatment  of  our  envoys, 

(a)  The  recall  of  Gouverneur  Morris  had  been 
demanded  because  he  did  not  favor  the  excesses 
of  the  French  Revolution. 

(b)  C.  C.  Pinckney  was  not  received,  because  the 
Directory  were  angry  at  the  recall  of  Monroe 
and  at  the  result  of  the  ejection  of  1796. 

(e)  The  disgraceful  \  \./..  demands  for  a  bribe 
were  a  direct  insult 

3.  Her  depredations  on  our  commerce,  contrary  to 
treaty  and  neutral  rights,  showed  contempt  for  the 
United  States. 

B.  1.  Adams  in  1798  declared  diplomatic  relations  broken 

off. 

2.  An  army  and  a  navy  were  organized,  merchants' 
vessels  were  armed,  and  several  successes  gained 
at  sea. 

C.  France  became  alarmed,  and  in  an  indirect  way  signi- 
fied a  desire  to  renew  negotiations.1 

The  writer  of  this  brief  begs  the  question  entirely  before 
he  reaches  the  brief  proper.  What  a  reader  needs  to  k n«.\v 
is  that  after  the  United  States  had,  in  1798,  for  reasons 
which  seemed  to  it  good,  broken  off  diplomatic  relate. us 
with  France  and  prepared  for  war,  it  sent,  in  1799,en\..\  s 
to  France  to  negotiate  with  her.  The  general  grounds 
for  the  original  breaking  off  of  diplomatic  relations  and 
the  reason  stated  for  sending  envoys  should  be  giv« -n,  hut 

1  This  Introduction  not  only  does  much  that  it  ought  not,  but  evidently 
fails  to  give  much  that  ia  needed. 


EXPOSITORY  PURPOSE  OK   INTRODUCTION      22 

evidently  the  writer  most  not  in  starting  commit  himse 
as  to  the  justice  or  the  injustice  of  the  reasons  for  whic 
the  United  States  broke  off  diplomatic  relations  or  the  sati 
factoriness  of  the  way  in  which  France  asked  for  negotii 
tions.  •  Proof  in  regard  to  these  matters  must  settle  tl 
question  one  way  or  the  other.  This  writer,  however,  hi 
no  compunctions  about  treating  these  matters,  and  in  U 
beading  I.  A  with  iu  subheads  1  (a),  (6),  2  (a),  (5),  (<?),  an 
8  asserts  as  facts  the  very  matters  which  must  be  debate 
and  which  he  ought  to  have  saved  as  very  effective  pnx 
in  the  argument  proper.  If  we  challenge  these  statement 
he  must  argue  before  he  has  put  before  us  the  necessai 
introductory  material,  —  for  most  of  that  is  in  B  and  < 
Such  a  method,  means  confusing,  ineffective  work.  J 
we  do  not  challenge  his  statements,  we  have  granted  hii 
•ore  than  half  his  case ;  namely,  that  the  United  State 
was  entirely  justified  in  breaking  off  diplomatic  relation 
and,  unless  a  spirit  of  great  repentance  and  conciliatio 
was  shown  by  France,  was  not  justified  in  sending  envoyi 
When  the  writer  adds  in  C  that  France,  after  all  this  evi 
doing,  signified  her  desires  only  in  an  indirect  way,  we  fe< 
more  strongly  still  that  the  United  States  could  not  hav 
been  justified  in  sending  envoys.  That  is,  here  the  write 
really  begs  the  rest  of  the  case. 

If  this  brief  is  compared  with  Brief  A,  the  superiorit 
MO  impartial  introduction,  that  is,  one  which  does  no 
mingle  expository  matter  with  matter  that  produces  disa 
greement,  will  be  evident  The  prejudice  in  an  introduc 
tion  is  not  usually  difficult  to  detect,  for  some  phrase  lik< 
"presumptuous  and  overbearing  manner,"  "the  disgrace 
ful  X.Y.X.  «leraands,"  of  this  writer  will  show  the  reade 
that  he  is  dealing  with  a  man  whose  vocabulary  is  no 


222  BRIEF-DRAWING 

impartial,  and  who,  therefore,  is  probably  not  impartial  in 
his  opinions. 

Its  analytical  purpose.  Besides  furnishing  the  reader 
with  an  explanation  that  prepares  him  to  read  the  brief 
proper  intelligently,  the  task  of  the  introduction  is  affected 
by  the  desirability  of  putting  before  the  reader  at  this  early 
point  some  of  the  results  of  the  analysis  to  which  the 
proposition  has  been  subjected  and  by  which  the  question 
is  narrowed  to  the  discussion.  It  is  usually  this  analysis, 
indeed,  that  gives  the  form  to  the  explanatory  material  of 
the  introduction.1  A  writer  can  hardly  define  and  analyze 
properly  without  affording  a  clear  basis  for  discussion  (see 
Brief  A) ;  but  without  these  he  might  give  an  introduction 
which  would  be  apparently  adequate  but  which  would 
neglect  matters  that  are  of  great  logical  importance  and 
would  fail  properly  to  narrow  the  question.  The  work  of 
the  introduction  centers  in  the  special  issues.  In  the  brief, 
at  least,  these  issues  and  what  leads  to  them  should  be- 
definitely  stated,  as  in  Brief  A.  We  may  therefore  sum 
up  the  work  of  the  introduction,  both  explanatory,  and 
analytical,  by  the  two  following  rules :  — 

The  Introduction  should  contain  all  the  information  neces- 
sary for  an  intelligent  reading  of  the  Brief  Proper.  (Rule  VI.) 

The  Introduction  should  always  contain  a  statement  of  the 
special  issues.  (Rule  VII.) 

The  length  of  the  introduction.  The  introduction  natu- 
rally varies  in  length.  It  sometimes  gives,  when  the  ques- 
tion is  unusual  or  intricate,  all  the  information  suggested 

1  It  is  a  simple  task  to  introduce  the  necessary  explanation  while  stat- 
ing the  history  of  the  question,  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion,  the 
origin  of  the  question,  the  definition  put  upon  it,  and  the  points  that  from 
the  clash  in  opinion  seem  the  vital  issues. 


THE  PHRASING  OF  THE  INTRODUCTION        223 

as  possible  in  analysis.  Often,  however,  so  much  detail  is 
not  needed.  The  immediate  cause  for  discussion  and  the 
origin  of  the  question  may  be  known  to  all,  as  in  any  dis- 
cussion on  some  topic  of  the  hour.  For  instance,  when 
Lord  Chatham  spoke  in  the  House  of  Lords  in  favor  of  the 
removal  of  the  troops  from  Boston  there  was  no  need,  at 
a  time  when  all  British  eyes  were  on  the  American  colo- 
nies, to  explain  the  origin  of  the  question  or  its  immediate 
cause.  Often,  too,  in  the  reduction  of  the  clash  in  opinion 
to  the  special  issues  there  is  nothing  to  be  admitted  by 
both  sides  beyond  the  definitions,  or  nothing  really  extra- 
neous that  has  been  connected  with  the  discussion.  Some- 
times there  is  no  need  to  define  terms,  for  they  clearly 
convey  their  own  meaning.  Plainly,  then,  the  introduc- 
tion to  a  brief  may  vary  from  something  that  does  little 
more  than  state  the  exact  issues  to  be  discussed,  as  in 
Lincoln's  letter  to  McClellan,  to  a  more  elaborate  plan 
that  embodies  two,  three,  four,  or  all  of  the  possible  steps 
of  an  introduction.  What  shall  be  included  and  what 
omitted  depends  upon  the  character  of  the  audience  and 
its  knowledge  of  the  subject. 

The  phrasing  of  the  introduction.  A  writer  may  con- 
scientiously perform  the  necessary  work  of  the  introduc- 
tion without  phrasing  his  material  in  such  fashion  that  it 
is  most  serviceable  to  himself  and  his  reader.  To  insure 
this,  certain  rules  for  brief-drawing  have  been  formulated. 
By  another  consistent  scheme  an  intelligent  writer  may 
secure  both  clearness  and  conciseness ;  but  by  observing 
these  rules  he  will  attain  his  results  surely  and  quickly. 

The  fundamental  rule  for  brief  phrasing  is  that  the  ideas 
should  be  phrased  as  complete  statements  arranged  in  head- 
ings and  subheadings.  Even  in  an  ordinary  outline  the  safe 


224  BRIEF-DRAWING 

principle  is  to  use  sentences  only  and  not  phrases.  A  sen- 
tence must  mean  something  and  it  usually  means  approxi- 
mately what  the  writer  has  in  mind.  A  phrase,  on  the 
contrary,  may  have  no  meaning,  or  its  meaning  to  the  reader 
may  be  quite  foreign  to  the  writer's  intention.1  Moreover, 
if  these  ideas  are  accurately  correlated  by  means  of  num- 
bers and  letters  so  that  the  reader  can  see  at  a  glance  what 
ideas  are  coordinate  and  what  are  subordinate,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  brief  will  gain  greatly  in  clearness.2 

By  deft  phrasing  the  writer  can  do  much  to  obviate  the 
danger  of  argumentative  introductions  already  referred  to. 
Almost  any  statement  can  be  introduced  as  the  opinion  of 
another  in  such  fashion  that  immediate  discussion  is  not 
provoked.  As  a  further  safeguard  to  insure  the  explana- 
tory nature  of  the  introduction  it  is  helpful  for  the  writer 
to  observe  the  rule  insisted  upon  by  many  lawyers  and 
judges,  that  "  for  "  and  "  because,"  as  the  signs  of  formal 
argument,  shall  not  be  used  to  connect  headings  and  sub 
headings  in  the  introduction.  To  substitute  "  since  "  or 
"  in  that "  when  the  relation  of  ideas  demands  such  a  con- 
nective keeps  a  writer  on  his  guard  and  is  no  less  clear. 
In  Illustration  4  the  writer  encounters  serious  difficulty  by 
provoking  argument  before  he  gets  to  the  brief  proper. 

The  clear  phrasing  of  the  introduction  depends  then 
upon  an  observance  of  the  following  rules :  — 

Ideas  should  be  phrased  in  complete  statements  arranged 
in  headings  and  subheadings.  (Rule  II.) 

1  With  great  care  and  good  luck  a  writer  who  has  his  reader  always 
in  mind  may  write  in  notes  and  phrases  a  brief  that  will  serve  his  pur- 
pose ;  but  if  teachers  of  rhetoric  insist  that  outlines  should  properly  be 
written  in  complete  sentences,  is  it  not  more  important  in  the  brief, 
where  every  step  may  affect  the  whole  ? 

8  Compare  Illustrations  2,  3,  and  4  with  Brief  A. 


THE  CORRELATION  OF  THE  INTRODUCTION     225 

In  the  Introduction  ideas  bearing  upon  the  truth  or  the 
falsity  of  the  proposition  in  dispute  should  be  so  phrased 
as  not  to  produce  immediate  discussion.  (Rule  VIII.) 

In  the  Introduction  the  connectives  "for"  and  "because" 
should  be  avoided.  (Rule  IX.) 

The  correlation  of  the  introduction.  In  order  that  the 
brief  may  clearly  mark  the  ordination  of  the  material,  it  is 
very  necessary  that  some  consistent  and  lucid  scheme  be 
adopted  to  connect  coordinate  matter  and  to  differentiate 
from  it  subordinate  matter.  An  uncorrelated  brief  may  be 
perfectly  intelligible,  but  it  can  never  be  so  quickly  and 
surely  read  as  one  in  which  the  proper  relation  of  ideas  is 
indicated  by  indentation  and  by  the  accurate  use  of  numbers, 
letters,  or  other  symbols.  The  practice  of  giving  a  distinct 
mark  to  every  complete  statement  is  not  difficult  to  acquire 
and  greatly  increases  the  serviceableness  of  the  brief.  The 
following  example  shows  the  advantages  of  correlation. 

Illustration  5 

Does  the  Gorge  of  the  Niagara  River  Afford  a  Sufficient 
Index  of  the  Duration  of  Post-Crlacial  Time  f 

INTRODUCTION 

It  is  admitted  by  all  that  the  gorge,  as  we  now  know  it,  has 
been  cut  since  the  close  of  the  ice  age,  that  it  is  increasing  in 
length  at  the  cataract  end,  and  that  the  cataract  is  the  cause 
of  the  increase.  In  attempting  to  estimate  the  duration  of 
post-glacial  time,  certain  geologists  like  Wright,  Spencer,  and 
Lyell  state  that  it  is  merely  necessary  to  determine  the  rate  at 
which  the  length  of  the  gorge  is  now  increasing,  and  then  to 
compute  from  the  known  length  of  the  gorge  the  time  it  has 
taken  to  form  the  whole.  Other  geologists  such  as  Gilbert 
and  Shaler  assert,  however,  that  the  rate  of  erosion  has  varied 


226  BRIEF-DRAWING 

for  several  causes,  and  also  that  there  was  a  period  of  unknown 
duration  between  the  close  of  the  ice  age  and  the  birth  of  the 
river,  and  that,  therefore,  the  methods  and  results  of  Wright, 
Spencer,  and  Lyell  are  inaccurate. 

Correlating  the  foregoing  material,  which,  though  good 
as  far  as  it  goes,  lacks  a  narrowing  of  the  rather  broadly 
stated  clash  in  opinion  to  the  special  issues,  will  make  the 
ideas,  clearer  and  save  the  reader's  time.  Certainly  it  is 
easier  to  understand  the  origin  of  the  question,  the  facts 
admitted  by  both  sides,  and  the  broadly  stated  clash  in 
opinion  in  the  following  correlated  form. 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  The  following  facts  are  admitted  by  all  geologists  : 

A.  The  gorge  of  the  Niagara  B-iver,  as  we  know  it,  has 
been  cut  since  the  close  of  the  ice  age. 

B.  It  is  increasing  in  length  at  the  cataract  end. 

C.  The  cataract  is  the  cause  of  the  increase. 

II.  Certain  geologists,  —  among  them  Wright,  Lyell,  and 
Spencer,  —  in  attempting  to  estimate  the  duration  of 
post-glacial  time,  think  only  two  things  are  necessary. 

A.  They  would  determine  the  rate  at  which  the  length 
of  the  gorge  is  now  increasing. 

B.  And  then  compute  from  the  known  length  of  the  gorge 
the  time  it  has  taken  to  form  the  whole. 

III.  Other  geologists  —  among  them  Gilbert  and  Shaler  — 
think  that  the  methods  and  the  results  of  Wright  and 
the  others  are  inaccurate  in  that 

A.  The  rate  of  erosion  has  varied  for  several  causes. 

B.  There  was  a  period  of  unknown  duration  between  the 
close  of  the  ice  age  and  the  birth  of  the  river. 

If  correct  correlation  be  of  great  service,  it  is  clear  that 
incorrect  correlation  is  worse  than  useless.  Confusion  is 


THE  CORRELATION  OF  THE  INTRODUCTION  227' 

worse  confounded  if  the  writer  change  from  the  symbol  of 
one  order  to  that  of  another  when  there  is  no  change  in  the 
logical  relation  of  ideas,  or  if  he  fail  to  change  wherever 
the  logical  relations  demand  it.  The  following  bits  of 
bad  briefing  show  the  pitfalls  to  which  careless  correlation 
leads. 

Correlation  not  expressing  logical  relations 
Illustration  6 

A.  Mr.  Pullman  was  right  in  refusing  to  submit  to  arbitra- 
tion the  demands  of  his  employees,  because 
1.  A  capitalist  has  a  right  to  manage  his  business  as 
he  will,  so  long  as  he  does  not  injure  any  one  or 
violate  any  law. 

(a)  Mr.  Pullman's  business  is  a  private  matter ;  no 
disinterested  person  has  any  right  to  dictate  to 
him. 

(b)  No  man  is  obliged  to  work  for  Mr.  Pullman ;  if 
he  is  dissatisfied  he  may  seek  for  work  else- 
where. 

(c)  The  private  business  of  any  one  is  not  a  matter 
for  arbitration. 

Illustration  7 

Does  Lamb  Rightly  Estimate  the  "Artificial  Comedy 
of  the  Last  Century"? 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  Congreve's  comedies  are  those  we  should  consider,  and 

they  are  licentious. 
II.  Lamb  maintains  that  they  are,  nevertheless,  inoffensive, 

because  unreal  to  us. 
III.  Yet  reality  is  the  chief  quality  of  good  dramatic  work. 


228  BRIEF-DRAWING 

BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  A  conventional  world  of  bad  manners  may  be  inoffensive 

to  us; 
II.  But  Congr eve's  is  not  an  inoffensive  conventional  world. 

III.  And  there  must  be  some  morals  in  the  "  conventional 
world  of  Comedy." 

IV.  The  characters  are  not  unlike  ourselves. 

CONCLUSION 
I.  Lamb  probably  did  not  mean  all  that  he  said. 

In  this  brief,  III  in  the  introduction,  as  it  implies  that 
Lamb  was  wrong  in  ascribing  unreality  to  these  plays 
of  high  dramatic  order,  is  the  beginning  of  the  argument, 
and  should  be  in  the  brief  proper.  Moreover,  the  transi- 
tion from  it  to  the  headings  of  the  brief  proper  is  by 
no  means  clear.  I  in  the  brief  proper  is  really  granted 
matter,  and  belongs  in  the  introduction.  II  would  be  clear 
if  the  introduction  properly  prepared  for  it;  but  III  is 
vague  and  does  not  develop  from  II.  IV  also  comes  in 
loosely,  and  does  not  at  all  advance  the  argument ;  it 
seems  really  part  of  the  proof  of  II.  In  three  of  these 
headings,  then,  the  correlation  does  not  express  the  true 
logical  relation,  and  in  one  other  the  phrasing  or  cor- 
relation results  in  vagueness. 

Another  fault  in  correlation  is  that  of  marking  twice 
one  logical  idea,  or  splitting  one  logical  idea  into  two  or 
more  parts  and  marking  each  fragment  separately.  The 
beginner  in  brief-drawing  who  now  omits  logical  steps  and 
again  disregards  the  logical  relations  of  what  he  gives 
finds  this  fault  of  double  marking  difficult  to  avoid,  as  is 
shown  by  the  following  extracts  from  students'  briefs. 


THE  CORRELATION  OF  THE  INTRODUCTION     229 


Double  marking  —  Illustration  8 

I.  The  relations  between  Prance  and  the  United  States  in 
1799  were  as  follows :  — 

A.  Prance  had  held  the  United  States  in  contempt,  and 
had  insulted  the  nation  in  that,  etc. 

B.  1.  Adams  in  1798  declared  diplomatic  relations  broken 

off. 
2.  An  army  and  a  navy  were  organized,  etc. 

Illustration  9 

II.  We  have  not  sufficient  data  for  measuring  the  effect  of 
the  inconstancy  of  the  hardness  and  relative  thickness 
of  the  materials  eroded,  for 
A.   We  cannot  estimate 

1.  How  far  above  the  Whirlpool  the  ancient  gorge 
was  cut. 

2.  How  deep  into  the  plateau  it  was  cut. 

3.  How  much   the   hardness   of   the   limestone  has 
varied. 

4.  The  effect  of  a  change  in  its  thickness  on  the 
rapidity  of  erosion. 

In  this  case  two  fragments  of  the  first  reason  for  the 
truth  of  II  are  marked  separately;  one  A  and  the  other  1. 
Each  is  meaningless  without  the  other,  and  the  two  form 
one  statement.  Evidently,  then,  the  correct  correlation 
would  be  as  follows :  — 

II.  We  have  not,  etc. 

A.  We  cannot  estimate  how  far  above  the  Whirlpool  the 
ancient  gorge  was  cut. 

B.  Or  how  deep  into  the  plateau  it  was  cut. 

C.  Or  how  much  the  hardness,  etc. 


230  BRIEF-DRAWING 

Thus  in  the  introduction  we  find  it  well  to  observe 
three  fundamental  rules  for  brief-drawing  which  apply  no 
less  to  every  division  of  the  brief. 

The  relation  of  each  idea  to  every  other  should  be  indicated 
by  means  of  numbers,  letters,  or  other  symbols.  (Rule  III.) 

A  change  of  symbol  should  always  denote  a  change  of 
relation.  (Rule  IV.) 

Headings  or  subheadings  should  never  be  marked  twice. 
(Rule  V.) 

SECTION  3  —  THE  BRIEF  PROPER 

Its  logical  purpose.  The  purpose  of  the  brief  proper  is 
fundamentally  logical.  There  the  argument  is  given  for 
which  the  introduction  was  a  preparation  and  of  which 
the  conclusion  is  to  be  a  summary.  It  is  the  division  that 
secures  for  the  writer  the  agreement  of  the  reader,  if  that 
agreement  is  to  be  obtained  at  all.  It  must  therefore 
give  a  complete  presentation  of  the  logical  force  of  the 
argument.  In  the  brief  proper,  then,  a  wrjter  not  only 
phrases  succinctly  the  ideas  which  he  thinks  must  be 
proved  true  if  his  proposition  is  to  be  admitted;  but  for 
the  support  of  these  .ideas  he  gathers  proof  and  conveys 
to  his  reader  an  intelligent  idea  of  the  nature  arid  the 
value  of  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  the  contentions  in 
the  brief  proper. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  consider  that  the  brief  fulfills  its  func- 
tion if  it  merely  outlines  the  case  for  future  evidential 
support,  or  if  the  evidence  is  suggested  but  not  stated, — . 
as  in  Briefs  A 1  and  B  1.  A  brief  is  to  show  the  convin- 
cingness of  the  argument  as  it  exists  apart  from  literary 
presentation.  Everything,  therefore,  that  has  probative 
value  for  the  finished  argument  should  be  included,  and 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  DIRECT  PROOF  231 

e»nly  illustrative,  transitional,  summarizing,  and  purely 
persuasive  material  omitted,  —  as  in  Briefs  A  and  B.1 

Arrangement  to  secure  logical  and  rhetorical  force.  As 
a  device  for  structure  and  for  the  grouping  of  evidence, 
however,  a  brief  offers  certain  opportunities  to  prepare 
for  the  literary  presentation  of  the  case,  especially  in  the 
matter  of  arrangement.  For  purposes  of  conviction  there 
may  be  one  arrangement  which  is  more  effective  than  any 
other  form ;  but  more  often  the  writer  is  free  to  arrange 
his  ideas  according  to  the  rhetorical  principles  of  coherence 
and  climax. 

Direct  proof.  To  lay  down  many  detailed  rules  for  this 
important  matter  of  the  arrangement  of  direct  proof  would 
be  extremely  dangerous.  It  must  be  settled  by  the  tact 
of  the  writer  as  he  considers  the  nature  of  his  subject 
and  the  character  and  temper  of  his  readers.2  The  judg- 
ment of  a  trained  mind  as  to  what  to  do  in  each  given  case 
is  more  useful  than  pages  of  theory.  Under  normal  cir- 
cumstances, as  we  have  already  seen,  an  argument  should 
open  with  direct  proof  rather  than  with  refutation.  This 
direct  proof  should  be  strong  and  cogent  in  its  effective- 
ness for  the  audience  addressed ;  sometimes  it  may  well  be 
startling.  As  a  principle,  preparatory  arguments  —  as  an 
argument  of  probability  or  of  need  —  should  come  very 
early  in  the  work.  For  instance,  in  trying  to  prove  that 
a  certain  person  committed  murder,  an  effective  opening 
argument  would  show  forcibly  that  the  suspected  person 
had  strong  motives  for  desiring  the  death,  or  even,  if  the 

1  For  illustration  of  the  difference  between  the  finished  argument  and 
the  brief  compare  the  brief  from  the  Chatham  speech,  Appendix,  with  the 
speech  itself.     Specimens  of  Argumentation,  pp.  7-21. 

2  For  a  full  discussion  of  these  see  the  chapter  on  Persuasion. 


232  BRIEF-DRAWING 

matter  were  disputed,  cogent  proof  that  the  accused  could 
have  done  the  deed.  So,  too,  in  arguing  for  reform,  it  is 
often  helpful  to  show  at  the  outset  the  general  need  for 
reform  in  directions  that  are  not  likely  to  arouse  violent 
disagreement.  By  this  means  the  writer  secures  agree- 
ment in  a  small  matter,  and  makes  easier  agreement  in 
the  more  hotly  contested  divisions  of  the  argument ;  that 
is,  takes  advantage  of  the  powerful  principle  of  inertia. 
General  arguments  more  effectively  precede  particular, 
whereas  arguments  that  are  in  their  nature  conclusive 
should  be  placed  late  in  the  argument,  —  as  an  appeal  to 
examples  in  verification  of  a  theory  proposed,  or  the  use 
of  an  argument  on  a  high  moral  plane  after  an  argument 
based  upon  expediency. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  briefs  in  which  a  change 
in  arrangement  would  greatly  lessen  the  effectiveness  of  the 
argument.  In  the  first,  for  instance,  it  is  important  to  pre- 
pare readers  for  a  justification  of  the  Irish  by  showing  that 
there  are  circumstances  in  which  illegal  measures  are  defen- 
sible before  proceeding  to  the  justification  of  concrete  cases 
in  Ireland. 

Illustration  10 

Are  the  Irish  Justified  in  using  Illegal  Measures  of  Resist- 
ance to  English  Rule  ? 

BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  Under  special  conditions  measures  not  strictly  legal  may 

be  defensible,  for  — 

II.  All  these  special  conditions  exist  in  Ireland  as  grounds 
for  resistance,  for  — 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  REFUTATION       233 

Illustration  11 

Did  the  Council  of  Constance  Maintain  the  Principle  that  it 
was  Unnecessary  for  the  Church  to  Keep  Faith  with  a 
Heretic  ? 

BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  There  is  antecedent  probability  that  the  Council  would 
maintain  this  principle,  for,  etc. 

A.  Religious  intolerance  just  prior  to  and  during  the 
fifteenth   century   was  very   great   and  widespread, 
for,  etc. 

B.  The  Council  must  have  expressed  the  feeling  of  the 
time,  for,  etc. 

II.  The  Council  had  strong  motives  for  holding  this  principle, 
for,  etc. 
A.  They  desire  to  punish  heresy,  in  person  of  one  John 

Huss,  despite  his  royal  safe-conduct,  for,  etc. 
III.  There  is  strong  historical  proof  that  the  Council  did 
maintain  this  principle,  for,  etc. 

Arrangement  of  refutation.  .  It  has  been  seen  that  refu- 
tation is  of  two  kinds,  general  and  special.  There  are 
certain  definite  principles  of  arrangement  which  have  been 
made  clear  in  the  preceding  chapter  of  which  the  most 
important  for  brief-drawing  is  the  rule  :  — 

Refutation  of  objections,  not  to  the  proposition,  but  to 
details  of  proof,  should  meet  such  objections  where  they 
arise.  (Rule  XV.) 

The  following  illustrations  show  instances  in  which  the 
four  different  arrangements  have  been  employed  advan- 
tageously and  in  which  another  arrangement  would  have 
been  less  effective. 


234  BRIEF-DRAWING 

Illustration  12  — The  initial  position 

Boards  of  Arbitration  with  Powers  of  Compulsory  Investiga* 
tion  and  Decision  should  be  Instituted  in  this  Country 

BRIEF  PROPER  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE1 

I.  The  objeation  that  compulsory  arbitration  is  an  unjust 
encroachment  on  the  personal  liberty  of  employers  and 
employed  is  untrue,  for 

A.  The  public  have  a  right  to  interfere,  for 

1.  They  are  profoundly  concerned  as  a  state,  for,  etc. 

2.  They  are  concerned  as  individual  producers  and 
traders,  in  other  industries  dependent  on  the  one 
in  which  the  strike  occurs,  for,  etc. 

3.  They  are  concerned  as  consumers,  for,  etc. 

B.  The  proposed  plan  of  compulsory  arbitration  is  a 
protection  of  individual  liberty,  for 

1.  It  gives  a  man  the  chance  of  having  the  right  to 
sell  his  own  labor,  and 

2.  This  right  is  now  denied  him  by  labor  unions,  for, 
etc. 

3.  This  right  is  half  denied  him  by  the  public,  for, 
etc. 

C.  That  the  public  have  a  right  to  interfere,  and  that  this 
secures  individual  liberty  in  important  respects  are 
considerations  serious  enough  to  outweigh  the  unfair- 
ness of  any   encroachments    on    individual    liberty 
involved  in  the  plan,  for 

1.  Such  encroachment  is  not  serious,  for,  etc. 

1  In  the  introduction  to  this  brief,  both  sides  in  the  debate  agreed  that 

I.  Some  form  of  arbitration  is  desirable  as  a  means  of  preventing 
strikes. 
II.  Compulsory  arbitration  will  prevent  strikes. 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  REFUTATION       235 

2.  The  liberty  of  the  public  at  large  is  more  to  be  con- 
sidered than  that  of  any  class  or  classes,-  for,  etc. 
II.  Voluntary  arbitration  is  inadequate  in  settling  labor  dis- 
putes, for,  etc. 

III.  The  interference  of  the  voluntary  board  can  be  effective, 
usually,  only  when  there  is  a  very  strong  public  senti- 
ment, for,  etc. 

IV.  Public  sentiment  is  roused  only  after  a  great  deal  of 
inconvenience  and  harm  has  been  caused,  for,  etc. 

V.  Agreements  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  a  board  are  often 

broken,  for,  etc. 

VI.  Mr.  C.  F.  Adams,  Jr.,  one  of  the  most  ardent  advocates 
of  forced  investigation  and  voluntary  arbitration,  admits 
that  his  method  cannot  prevent  all  strikes,  for,  etc. 
VII.  Boards  with  power  to  investigate  have  failed  to  prevent 
important  strikes,  for,  etc. 

• 

Illustration  13  — The  final  position 

RESOLVED  :  That  Convicts  should  be  Productively  Employed, 
even  though  they  come  into  Competition  with  the  Out- 
side Market 

BRIEF  FOB  THE  NEGATIVE 

I.  Direct  competition  of  convict  labor  with  free  labor  is 

unjust,  for,  etc. 
II.  Convicts  can  be  employed  without  coming  into  direct 

competition  with  free  labor,  for,  etc. 

III.  The  contention  that  productive  employment  is  better  than 
manual  training  is  untrue,  for 

A.  Manual  training  insures  the  convict  a  living  in  after 
life. 

1.  It   enables   him  to   become   self-supporting  in  a 
variety  of  employments. 


236  BRIEF-DRAWING 

2.  It  develops  not  only  his  hands  but  his  head. 
B.  That  kind  of  productive  employment  (making  brooms, 
shoes,  etc.)  coming  into  direct  competition  with  free 
labor  is  bad  for  the  convict. 

1.  It  does  not  make  him  self-supporting  when  free 
again. 

(a)  It  does  not  discriminate  according  to  the  age, 
needs,  and  ability  of  the  convicts. 

2.  The  lack  of   headwork    fosters   crime   only   less 
than  idleness. 

(a)  Unskillful  ways  of  working  taught  in  prison 

encourage  evil  habits. 

IV.  The  contention  that  productive  employment  is  better  for 
financial  considerations  is  unimportant,  for 

A.  The  correction  and  instruction  of  the  convicts  should 
be  the  first  consideration. 

1.  Most   crime   is   due  to   ignorance  and   resulting 
poverty. 

B.  They  lead  to  political  corruption. 

1.  The  selling  of  convict  products  is  a  great  tempta- 
tion for  prison  officials. 

(a)  By   manipulating    the    sales    they   can    reap 
great  personal  profits. 


Illustration  14  —  The  normal  position 

Brief  drawn  from  Lord  Chatham's  Speech * 
BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  It  will  show  the  willingness  of  the  English  to  treat 

amicably. 
II.  The  resistance  of  the  Americans  was  necessary. 

1  For  this  brief  in  full  see  Appendix. 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  REFUTATION       237 

III.  The  means  of  enforcing  the  measures  of  Parliament  had 
failed. 

IV.  If  Parliament  tries  by  the  aid  of  the  army  to  enforce 
its  measures,  the  result  will  be  bad. 

V.  The  statement  that  "  the  union  in  America  cannot  last " 

is  untrue. 
VI.  The  statement  that  the  Americans  should  be  punished 

for  illegal  violence  is  untrue. 
VII.  The   removal   of   the   troops  must  precede  any  other 

step. 

VIII.  The  views  of  Congress  are  moderate  and  reasonable. 
IX.  It  is  an  old  maxim  that  the  first  concession  comes  most 

fitly  from  the  superior. 

X.  While  every  policy  urges  withdrawal  of  the  troops, 
every  danger  warns  the  English  from  keeping  to  the 
old  course. 

Illustration  15  —  The  combined  method 

RESOLVED  :  That  the  System  of  Bank-note  Issues  based  on 
General  Assets,  as  Recommended  by  the  Indianapolis 
Monetary  Commission,  is  Preferable  to  the  Present  Sys- 
tem based  on  United  States  Bonds 

BRIEF  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE 

I.  The  security  of  the  notes  under  the  new  scheme  must  be 

demonstrated,  for,  etc. 

II.  Even  if  safe,  the  plan  proposed  would  work  injustice  to 
depositors,  for,  etc. 

III.  The  new  plan  would  be  very  costly,  for,  etc. 

IV.  The  contention  that  the  present  system  is  inelastic  is 
unimportant,  for 

A.  The  rigidity  of  the  bank-note  issue  is  counterbalanced 
by  the  complete  elasticity  of  deposit  currency. 


238  BRIEF-DRAWING 

B.  The  law  of  March  14  has  made  the  bank-note  circula- 
tion more  elastic  by  allowing  issue  up  to  par  value  of 
the  bonds. 

C.  The  comptroller  recommends  that  the  present  scheme 
be  slightly  amended  by  allowing  uncovered  note-issue 
subject  to  a  heavy  tax  in  time  of  emergency. 

V.  The  plan  proposed  is  not  elastic. 

A.  Issue  above  80  per  cent  of  capital  is  prevented  by  a 

heavy  tax. 

VI.  The  contention  that  the  new  plan  will  diffuse  currency 
is  unsound. 

A.  Poor  banking  facilities  in  West  and  South  are  due 
to  lack  of  capital. 

B.  Temporarily  the  law  of  March  14,  1900,  furnishes  a 
considerable  remedy. 

1.  Banks  with  $25,000  capital  may  become  national 

banks. 

2.  Over    two   hundred   small    banks   have    already 

applied  for  charters. 

C.  Greater  equalization  of  wealth  will  equalize  banking 
facilities. 

Clear  and  easy  transitions.  That  the  brief  may  furnish 
the  structure  for  a  coherent  argument  it  is  necessary  that 
thought  be  given  to  transition  from  division  to  division  and 
from  subheading  to  subheading.  Bad  transitions  are  due 
to  careless  phrasing,  incorrect  correlation,  or  more  often  to 
an  analysis  originally  weak.  If  the  arrangement  is  logical, 
this  easy  transition  from  point  to  point  is  chiefly  a  matter 
of  careful  phrasing  and  accurate  correlation.  The  phras- 
ing should  make  evident  to  the  reader  that  each  division 
has  developed  from  that  preceding  and  leads  to  that  to 
follow.  To  gain  this  development  the  writer  must  study 
the  relations  of  the  parts  of  his  argument  to  see  just  how 
one  grows  out  of  the  other,  and  carefully  correlate  them. 


CLEAR  AND  EASY  TRANSITIONS  239 

When  a  writer  finds  that  the  transitions  in  his  brief  are 
criticised,  and  is  convinced  that  the  trouble  is  not  in  the 
phrasing  or  correlation,  he  should  reanalyze  the  division 
criticised  and  make  sure  that  he  masters  the  relations  of 
the  ideas  each  to  each,  and  then  arrange  them  according 
to  the  correct  relations. 

Illustration  16 

Should  Boston  Adopt  a  System  of  Underground  Transit  ? 

I.  The   following   statements   show  that  Boston's   transit 
facilities  are  inadequate  :  — 

A.  An  insufficient  number  of  cars  are  run. 

B.  As  a  result  passengers  often  have  to  stand  in  cars. 

C.  Progress  in  the  so-called  "  congested  district "  is  very 
slow,  as  is  shown  by  the  facts  that 

1.  There  are  only  surface  cars  to  take. 

2.  The  crowded  streets  delay  surface  cars. 

II.  Two  facts  prove  that  Boston  greatly  needs  more  rapid 
transit :  — 

A.  The  lack  of  rapid  transit  checks  its  growth,  in  that l 

1.  A  city  grows  fastest  in  its  suburbs. 

2.  Suburbs  cannot  grow  without  rapid  transit  to  the 
city. 

B.  Rapid  transit  diminishes  the   number  of  tenement 
houses,2  in  that 

1.  It  makes  it  possible  for  workingmen  to  live  in  the 
suburbs. 

In  Illustration  16  strong  analysis  would  have  shown 
that  I,  B  was  in  reality  proof  of  A  rather  than  of  I  and 
should  be  so  correlated.  The  transition  from  C  to  its 
subheadings  would  have  been  much  firmer  if  C  had  been 

1  Report  of  Rapid  Transit  Commission,    p.  229. 

2  Ibid.    p..  16. 


240  BRIEF-DRAWING 

phrased  so  that  1  and  2  would  actually  prove  its  truth. 
II,  which  now  reads  like  a  poor  rephrasing  of  I,  ought  to 
have  been  made  to  advance  the  case  by  building  upon  the 
idea  brought  out  in  I,  as  is  done  in  the  revision  that 
follows. 

I.  The  transit  facilities  of  Boston  are  inadequate,  for 

A.  An  insufficient  number  of  cars  are  run,  for 
1.  Passengers  often  have  to  stand  in  cars. 

B.  Progress  in  the  so-called  "  congested  district "  is  neces- 
sarily slow,  for 

1.  There  are  only  surface  cars  to  take. 

2.  The  crowded  condition  of  the  streets  must  delay 
surface  cars. 

II.  This  inadequacy  in  its  transit  facilities  is  highly  injurious 
to  Boston,  for 

A.  The  lack  of  rapid  transit  tends  to  check  its  growth, 
for 

1.  A  city  grows  fastest  in  its  suburbs. 

2.  Suburbs  cannot  grow  without  rapid  transit  to  the 
city. 

B.  Adequate  transit  facilities  would  diminish  the  number 
of  tenement  houses,  for 

1.  It  would  make  it  possible  for  workingmen  to  live 
in  the  suburbs. 

Illustration  17 

The  Students  of  Wellesley  College  should  have  Self-Government 
BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  To  adopt  this  method  of  self-government  would  benefit 
the  college  as  an  institution,  for 
A.   It  would  give  it  the  greatest  strength,  since 

1.  It  would  give  more  unity.     "  In  unity  is  strength." 


CLIMAX  241 

a.  Faculty  and  students  united  by 

(i)  Same  aim  :  The  greatest  good  of  college  and 

students. 
(ii)  Increase  of  mutual  confidence,  for 

w.  Without  unity  between  faculty  and  stu- 
dents there  is  lack  of  confidence.     See 
state  of  confidence  between  faculty  and 
students  at  Lasell  Seminary. 
x.  Trust  of  students  by  faculty  underlies 

this  government. 

y.  The  students  appreciate  the  trust. 
z.  Students  and  faculty  would  consult  each 

other  on  important  matters. 
B.  It  is  the  only  just  method  of  government,  for 

1.  All  would  share  in  government,  and  "  legislation 
without  representation  is  tyranny";  see 

a.  Attitude  of  English  towards  this. 

b.  Attitude  of  Americans  towards  it. 

In  Illustration  17  the  transitions  are  utterly  confused. 
I,  J,  1  and  B,  1  are  very  badly  analyzed,  phrased,  and  cor- 
related ;  A,  1,  a,  and  (i)  are  blind  in  phrasing  and  correla- 
tion; w  is  the  result  of  fallacious  analysis  and  must  probably 
be  abandoned;  finally,  B,  1,  a  and  b  are  not  phrased  to 
show  their  logical  relations  to  what  precedes.1 

Climax.  Finally,  in  arranging  ideas,  the  student  should 
give  heed  to  climax,  the  rhetorical  principle  of  going  from 
weaker  to  stronger.  This  principle  applies  in  argument 
much  less  rigidly  than  in  other  forms  of  composition ;  but 
within  certain  limits  it  is  indispensable  for  forcible  argu- 
mentation. In  the  arrangement  of  the  ideas  the  logical 
demands  of  the  case  must  first  be  considered:  —  the  opening 

1  Illustration  17  is  ndt  revised  here,  because  it  is  given  as  the  basis  of 
an  exercise  on  p.  63. 


242  BRIEF-DRAWING 

argument  of  the  forensic  must  be  a  very  cogent  one,  the 
opening  point  of  each  main  division  in  direct  proof  and 
in  refutation  must  have  special  effectiveness,  etc. :  —  but 
except  when  these  principles  must  be  observed,  climax 
may  be  obtained.  In  the  arrangement  of  the  smaller  sub- 
headings there  is  little  to  interfere  with  the  rigid  observance 
of  climax. 

In  Refutation  it  is  usually  advisable  to  begin  with  attack 
upon  the  strongest  argument  of  an  opponent  which  can  be 
successfully  controverted.  The  writer's  aim  is  to  weaken 
sympathy  with  his  opponent  promptly,  to  lessen  the  force 
of  his  adversary's  case  as  quickly  as  possible.  If  he  begins 
with  his  opponent's  weakest  argument  and  works  slowly 
to  the  strongest,  he  produces  but  half  the  effect  that  he 
will  if  at  the  outset  he  attacks  the  strongest  argument  of 
his  opponent  which  he  can  overcome.  In  the  first  case  he 
probably  considers  needlessly  arguments  so  dependent  on 
the  stronger  objections  that  they  must  fall  if  the  latter 
fall ;  therefore  he  wastes  time.  In  the  second  case  he  can 
show  that  some  of  the  minor  arguments  have  gone  down 
with  the  strong  argument  refuted.  Moreover,  every  argu- 
ment he  does  answer  after  the  strong  argument  has  been 
overcome  counts.  Climax,  then,  is  to  be  sought  for  in 
arranging  the  headings  and  subheadings  of  a  brief  with  due 
regard  for  the  necessities  of  logical  arrangement,  for  the 
importance  of  opening  arguments,  and  for  other  persuasive 
conditions. 

Subheadings  should  be  arranged  in  the  order  of  climax 
unless  this  order  violates  the  logical  order.  (Rule  XII.) 

Phrasing  of  ideas  in  the  brief  proper.  When  the  ideas 
that  constitute  the  structure  of  the  case*  have  been  carefully 
arranged,  the  matter  of  phrasing  becomes  very  important. 


PHRASING  OF  IDEAS  IN  THE  BRIEF  PROPER     243 

The  fundamental  rule  is  that  each  idea  is  to  be  phrased 
so  that  it  has  actual  probative  bearing  on  the  main  propo- 
sition or  one  of  its  supporting  headings.  Explanation  and 
illustration  are  not  to  be  phrased  as  a  logical  part  of  the 
brief  proper.  Every  heading,  then,  should  read  as  proof  of 
the  truth  of  the  proposition,  and  every  subheading  as  proof 
of  the  truth  of  the  heading  to  whieh  it  is  subordinate,  never 
as  mere  explanation.  (Rule  X.)  It  is  the  insistence  upon 
representing  the  logical  relations  of  ideas  which  particu- 
larly distinguishes  a  brief  from  other  forms  of  outline. 
The  following  examples  of  careless  and  illogical  phrasing 
show  the  faults  to  which  a  writer  is  liable  and  the  gain  in 
clearness  which  would  result  from  a  phrasing  that  shows 
exactly  the  logical  relation  between  ideas. 

Illustration  18  —  Poor  main  headings1 

Does  Lamb  rightly  Estimate  the  "Artificial  Comedy  of  the 
Last  Century"? 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  Congreve's  comedies  are  those  we  should  consider,  and 

they  are  licentious. 

II.  Lamb  maintains  that  they  are,  nevertheless,  inoffensive 
because  unreal  to  us. 

BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  Reality  is  the  chief  quality  of  good  dramatic  work. 
II.  A  conventional  world  of  bad  manners  may  be  inoffensive 

to  us. 

III.  Congreve's  is   not   such  a   conventional  world   of   bad 
manners.  § 

1  See  also  Illustration  6,  p.  227. 


244  BRIEF-DRAWING 

IV.  And  there  must  be  some  morals  in  the  "conventional 

world  of  Comedy." 
V.  The  characters  are  not  unlike  ourselves. 

CONCLUSION 
I.  Lamb  probably  did  not  mean  all  that  he  said. 

In  the  foregoing  very  faulty  brief  it  is  clear  that  II  does 
not  and  cannot  prove  the  proposition.  Indeed  it  seems 
to  be  admitted  matter  that  belongs  in  the  introduction. 
V  certainly  is  not  phrased  so  that  it  proves  the  proposition, 
even  if  we  accept  III  and  IV  as  so  phrased.  V  seems 
more  properly  to  prove  III.  Such  confusing  phrasing  in 
the  main  headings  is  likely  to  result  in  fallacious  work 
and  waste  of  good  evidence. 

Illustrations  as  proof.  In  the  following  from  the  frag- 
ment of  a  bad  brief  on  p.  241,  a  and  b  have  no  probative 
force  whatever,  but  are  merely  persuasive  illustrations, 
and  should  have  been  omitted  or  used  in  different  fashion 
as  the  argument  from  example. 

B.  It  is  the  only  just  method  of  government,  for 

1.  All  would  share  in  government,  and  "legislation 
without  representation  is  tyranny. "  ;  see 

a.  Attitude  of  English  towards  this. 

b.  Attitude  of  Americans  towards  it. 

Explanatory  subheadings 

V.  She  (France)  wished  to  make  them  (the  United  States) 
a  dependency  of  France,  for 
A.  She  wanted  to  surround  them  on  all  sides  by  foreign 

powers  of  whose  aggression  they  should  always  stand 

in  fear. 


DANGER  OF  "HENCE"  AND  "THEREFORE"   245 

Here,  evidently,  the  clause  introduced  "by  for  is  not  a  rea- 
son to  prove  the  truth  of  the  statement  that  France  wished 
to  make  the  United  States  dependent,  but  an  explanation 
of  that  statement.  A  proper  subheading  for  V  would 
read :  — 

A.  Her  conduct  in  the  negotiations  for  peace  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  Colonies  shows  this,  for,  etc. 

This  should  be  followed  by  subheadings  showing  how 
Vergennes  intrigued,  during  these  negotiations,  to  keep 
the  power  of  France  and  even  of  Spain  dominant  in  the 
New  World. 

The  following  is  another  illustration  of  the  explanatory 
subheading. 

A.   Students  do  not  consider  it  wrong  to  "crib"  under 
the  present  system,  for 
1.  Proctors  are  there  to  see  that  they  don't. 

Danger  of  "hence"  and  "therefore."  It  follows  that 
the  brief  proper  is  a  series  of  propositions  supported  by 
proof,  which  in  its  turn  is  phrased  as  propositions.  To 
connect  headings  by  hence  or  therefore  is,  then,  to  invert 
the  proper  relationship,  and  to  use  the  order  of  proof 
proposition,  which  though  logical  is  hopelessly  confus- 
ing when  used  in  connection  with  the  other.  For  and 
because  are  the  proper  connectives  to  express  the  relation 
that  should  exist  between  heading  and  subheading  through- 
out the  brief  proper ;  and  it  is  just  because  they  so  nicely 
phrase  these  relations  that  they  seem  out  of  place  in  the 
unargumentative  introduction. 

The  relation  between  subheadings  or  series  of  subheadings 
and  the  preceding  heading  is  never  expressed  by  "  hence  "  or 
"  therefore  "  but  by  "for  "  or  "  because."  (Rule  XI.) 


246  BRIEF-DRAWING 

Illustration  19 — Wrong  connectives 

Will  the  New  Rules  in  Football  Improve  the  Grame  ? 

I.  The  game  will  be  improved  from  the  player's  point  of 
view,  for 

C.  The  players  will  not  have  so  much  heavy  work  to  do, 
for 

1.  It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  the  game  has  more  of 
the  kicking  element  in  it,  hence 

(a)  Continuity  of  the  rushing  is  broken,  and 

(b)  Players  have  a  breathing  spell. 

II.  The  game  will  be  improved  from  a  spectator's  standpoint. 
B.  For  the  game  is  admittedly  more  open  by  the  new 
rules,  hence 

1.  He  can  see  the  players  to  better  advantage. 

2.  He  can  follow  the  ball  better. 

When  this  phrasing  seems  necessary  a  student  may  be 
sure  that  the  order  of  the  parts  of  his  brief  is  wrong.  If 
he  tries  to  put  for  and  because  in  the  place  of  his  hence 
and  therefore,  the  trouble  will  be  clear.  C,  1  in  the  above 
illustration  is  not  true  because  of  (a)  and  (b).  Instead, 
they  are  true  because  it  is  to  be  accepted  as  a  correct  state- 
ment. In  the  same  way,  B  under  II  in  this  illustration  is 
not  true  because  1  and  2  are,  but  they  are  true  because 
the  statement  in  B  must  be  believed.  That  is,  the  writer 
has  missed  the  correct  order  for  the  divisions  of  the  brief 
proper,  —  always  proposition,  proof,  —  and  has  used  instead 
proof,  proposition.  A  student  will  find  that  the  use  of  for 
and  because  will  always  throw  his  ideas  into  the  correct 
relationships,  that  hence  and  therefore  will  reverse  the  cor- 
rect order.  Revised,  the  divisions  just  cited  would  read :  — 


CROWDED  HEADINGS  247 

I.  The  game  will  be  improved  from  the  player's  point  of 
view,  for 

C.  The  players  will  not  have  so  much  heavy  work  to  do,  for 
1.  They  will  have  breathing  spells,  because 

a.  The  continuity  of  rushing  of  the  old  game  is 
broken,  for 
(i)  It  is  admitted  that  the  new  game  has  more 

kicking  in  it. 

II.  And  the  game  will  be  improved  from  a  spectator's  stand- 
point, for 

B.  He  can  watch  the  game  to  better  advantage,  both  as 
to  players  and  as  to  the  ball,  because 
1.  The  new  game  is  admittedly  more  open  by  the 
new  rules. 

Crowded  headings.  A  very  common  source  of  confusion 
and  illogical  work  is  the  careless  crowding  of  several  ideas 
of  logical  force  into  one  heading,  as  in  the  following :  — 

I.  Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  will  live,  not  only  because  its 
style  is  masterly,  but  also  because  its  thought  must 
strongly  interest  future  generations, 

A.  Since  it  best  expresses  the  wavering  between  faith 
and  uncertainty  of  the  present  day ; 

B.  Since  it  best,  in  poetry,  phrases  the  skepticism  of 
to-day. 

In  such  a  heading  it  is  difficult  for  the  reader  to  tell  at 
once  which  of  the  statements  in  I  is  proved  by  the  sub- 
headings, and  it  is  very  easy  for  the  writer  to  overlook  thb 
fact  that  while  he  has  proved  that  "its  thought  must 
strongly  interest  future  generations,"  he  has  neglected  to 
prove  that  "its  style  is  masterly,"  which  is  really  of 
greater  logical  importance  than  what  he  has  proved. 

Each  heading  or  subheading  should  contain  but  a  single 
proposition.  (Rule  XIII.) 


248  BRIEF-DRAWING 

Crowded  headings 

Will  Matthew  Arnold  Live  as  a  Poetf 
BRIEF  PROPER 

II.  The  only  poet  of  significance  who  truly  expressed  the 
wavering  and  skeptical  mood  of  his  day.  In  later  times 
men  will  turn  to  him  to  see  the  intellectual  spirit  of  our 
day  balancing  between  faith  and  uncertainty. 

Here  main  ideas  and  subordinate  are  thrown  together  con- 
fusingly.  We  can  make  this  clear  by  restating  it  with 
careful  correlation. 

II.  Matthew  Arnold's  poetry  will  live  because  its  thought 
must  strongly  interest  future  generations,  for 

A.  It  best  expresses  the  wavering  between  faith  and 
uncertainty  of  the  present  day. 

B.  It  best,  in  poetry,  phrases  the  skeptical  mood  of  his 
day. 

Are  the  Irish  Justified  in  Using  Illegal  Measures  of 
Resistance  to  English  Rule  f 

BRIEF  PROPER 

III.  Moreover,  history  shows  that  compliance,  pleading,  arbi- 
tration, will  not  make  England  do  Ireland  justice;  every 
gain  she  has  made  she  has  forced  by  violent  measures 
from  England,  for 

1.  Mr.  Butt,  as  a  leader  pleading  in  Parliament,  produced 
little  or  nothing. 

2.  Mr.  Parnell  and  Mr.  Biggar  with  their  method  of 
obstruction  gained  speedy  results. 

3.  The  terror   aroused   in   Ireland  by   the  illegal  acts 
already  done  has  aided  the  condition  of  the  people. 


VAGUE  PHRASING  249 

Vague  phrasing.  As  the  brief  proper  is  intended  to 
furnish  an  accurate  basis  for  an  estimate  of  the  convincing- 
ness of  the  argument  to  follow,  it  is  especially  important 
that  all  vagueness  in  the  presentation  of  evidence  should 
be  avoided,1  and  that  each  idea  should  be  so  phrased  that 
its  argumentative  value  is  unmistakable.  Vagueness  of 
this  sort  is  often  produced  if  a  writer  brings  in  the  names 
of  persons  or  events  as  significant  or  generally  understood 
when  they  are  not  well  known  to  a  reader. 

Illustration  20  —  Vague  phrasing 
Was  Swift  Married  to  Stella? 

A.  The  evidence  against  Swift  is  not  good,  for 

3.  Though  it  is  said  that  Mrs.  Dingley  did  not  express 
the  belief  that  Stella  was  married  to  Swift,  yet 

3'.  Mrs.  Dingley's  answer  is  not  clear,  etc. 

4.  Though  Mrs.  Bent  and  Mrs.  Ridgway  did  not  believe 
Swift  was  married  to  Stella,  yet 

4'.  They  were  only  servants,  and  Swift  would  not  have 
been  likely  to  communicate  his  secrets  to  them. 

5.  Though  Dr.  Lyon  did  not  believe  that  Swift  was  ever 
married,  yet,  etc. 

1  The  question  as  to  what  extent  references  in  the  brief  may  take  the 
place  of  quotations  must  depend  on  the  subject  treated  and  the  purpose 
for  which  the  quotation  is  to  be  used.  If  the  quotation  contains  a  defini- 
tion upon  which  the  question  turns,  even  in  part,  or  if  it  contains  impor- 
tant evidence,  the  quotation  should  be  given  or  concisely  summarized.  In 
either  case  a  careful  reference  to  its  source  should  be  given  at  the  bottom 
of  the  page.  The  extent  to  which  other  references  as  authorities  for  facts 
and  opinions  should  be  given  in  the  brief  must  be  determined  by  indi- 
vidual teachers.  Where  it  is  feasible,  the  citation  of  references  in  briefs 
trains  students  in  habits  of  accuracy,  and  makes  the  reader  rely  more  on 
the  writer. 


250  BRIEF-DRAWING 

Here  Mrs.  Dingley,  Mrs.  Bent,  Mrs.  Ridgway,  and  Dr. 
Lyon  appear  as  if  they  and  their  significance  as  witnesses 
were  known  to  the  reader.  If  the  writer  wishes  to  impress 
their  significance  on  his  reader  he  may  do  as  the  writer  of 
another  Swift-Stella  Brief  has  done  and  say :  — 

A.  The  evidence  which  is  used  to  prove  that  Swift  was  not 
married  to  Stella  is  not  good,  for 

3.  Though  it  is  said  that  Mrs.  Dingley,  Stella's  com- 
panion, did  not  express  the  belief  that  Stella  was 
married  to  Swift,  yet  — 

4.  Though  Mrs.  Bent  and  Mrs.  Eidgway,  Swift's  house- 
keepers, did  not  believe  that  Swift  was  married  to 
Stella,  yet- 

5.  Though  Dr.  Lyon,  a  personal  acquaintance  of  Swift, 
having  access  to  all  of  Swift's  papers,  did  not  believe 
that  Swift  was  ever  married,  yet  — 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  clauses  added  give  the  necessary 
information. 

A  brief  on  student  self-government  at  Wellesley  College 
provides  another  instance  of  vague  phrasing. 

II.  Self-government  will  benefit  the  students, 

C.  Since  it  has  benefited  those  that  have  attempted  it. 

1.  Contrast  Lasell  Seminary  and  Bryn  Mawr. 

2.  Tendency   toward    this    method   in   Wellesley   a 
success. 

Compare  first  years  of  college  with  present  time. 

Phrasing  of  refutation.  Clearness  and  logical  effective- 
ness can  be  gained  in  refutation  if  a  writer  will  take  pains 
in  phrasing  to  make  evident  not  only  the  fact  that  he  is 
refuting,  but  also  the  exact  objection,  special  or  general, 
which  he  is  trying  to  controvert.  Vague  reference  to 


PHRASING  OF  REFUTATION  251 

objections  or  a  slurring  over  of  the  fact  that  the  writer  is 
refuting  produces  in  the  mind  of  a  reader  who  knows  that 
objections  are  raised  at  these  points  the  suspicion  that  the 
writer  is  either  a  careless  or  somewhat  tricky  workman. 

Refutation  should  be  so  phrased  as  to  make  the  objection 
perfectly  clear.  (Rule  XIV*.) 

In  the  following  cases  the  writer  has  objections  in  mind, 
but  does  not  state  them  clearly. 

Illustration  21 

(7.   The  means  of  enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures  have 
failed,  for 

2.  The  army  in  America  is  not  a  safeguard,  for  — 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  to  enforce  its  measures,  the  result 
will  be  bad,  for 

3.  Persecution  of  those  men  whose  fathers,  etc.,  should 
cease,  for 

(a)  The  Americans  should  be  heard. 

E.  The  union  in  America  will  last. 

The  following  from  the  brief  of  Chatham's  speech  in 
the  Appendix  shows  different  useful  phrases :  — 

The  troops  should  be  removed,  for 

C.   The  means  of  enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures  have 
failed,  for 

2.    Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a 
safeguard,  yet  this  is  untrue,  for 
(a)  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 
(#)   It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans, 
or    2.    Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a 

safeguard,  yet  . 

2.'  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 
2."  It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans. 


252  BRIEF-DRAWING 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  to  enforce  its  measures,  the  result 
will  be  bad,  for 

3.    Persecution  of  those  men  whose  fathers  fled  to 
escape  it  should  cease,  for 

(a)  The  objection  that  the  "Americans  must  not 
be  heard  "  is  wrong,  because  — 

E.  The  statement  that  the  union  in  America  cannot  last 
is  not  true,  for  — 

Correlating  in  the  brief  proper.  The  principles  of  corre- 
lation for  the  brief  proper  do  not  vary  from  those  already 
laid  down  for  the  introduction.  A  writer  will  have  little 
difficulty  if  he  see  to  it  that  the  relation  of  each  idea  to 
every  other  is  designated  by  means  of  a  number,  letter,  or 
other  symbol,  that  a  change  of  symbol  always  denotes  a 
change  of  relation,  and  that  headings  or  subheadings  are 
never  marked  twice. 

Correlation  of  refutation.  If  at  first  a  writer  finds  a  little 
difficulty  in  applying  these  principles  to  refutation,  the 
following  devices  will  prove  helpful.  When  one  unsup- 
ported objection  is  to  be  answered,  a  statement  that  the 
objection  quoted  is  "  weak,"  "  irrelevant,"  or  "  untrue  "  is 
best.  When,  however,  two  or  more  related  objections  have 
to  be  answered  at  once,  or  where  the  objection  is  supported 
by  subheadings  that  themselves  need  refutation,  the  device 
must  be  more  complicated.  Then  it  is  convenient  to  state 
the  objections  in  one  or  more  headings,  with  subheadings 
if  needed,  introduced  by  the  words  "  Though  it  is  said,"  - 
the  answer  made  being  introduced  by  "Yet,"  and  the 
refutation  connected  with  the  exact  objection  answered  by 
the  use  of  primes  and  seconds. 


PURPOSE  OF  THE   CONCLUSION  253 


Illustration  22  —  Badly  correlated  refutation 

1.    Though,  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safe- 
guard, yet 

(a)  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 

(b)  It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans, 
and 

1.    Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safe- 
guard, yet  this  is  untrue,  for 
1'.  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible. 

The  first  illustration  should  read :  — 

1.    Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safe- 
guard, yet 

V.  It  is  powerless  and  held  in  contempt,  and 
1".  It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans. 

The  second  illustration  should  read :  — 

1.    The  objection  that  the  army  in  America  is  a  safeguard 
is  untrue,  for 

(a)  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible,  and 
#     It  is  an  irritation  to  the  Americans. 


SECTION  4  —  THE  CONCLUSION 

Its  purpose.  The  third  division  of  a  brief,  the  Conclu- 
sion, sums  up  very  concisely  the  argument  of  the  brief 
proper,  and  shows  clearly  the  steps  by  which  the  decision 
for  the  affirmative  or  negative  has  been  reached.  This 
decision,  as  a  matter  of  form,  should  always  be  given  at 
the  outset  of  the  Conclusion,  whether  or  not  the  writer 
wishes  to  state  it  at  just  this  place  in  the  peroration  of 
the  finished  argument. 


254  BRIEF-DRAWING 

No  new  evidence.  The  conclusion  is  the  place  foi 
recapitulation,  not  for  argument;  consequently  no  new 
evidence  bearing  upon  the  decision  should  be  included. 
Such  evidence  could  have  been  more  effectively  used  at 
the  proper  place  in  the  brief  proper,  and  its  insertion  out 
of  place  simply  calls  attention  to  the  carelessness  of  the 
writer. 

Qualifying  conclusions.  A  writer  who  has  undertaken 
to  prove  more  than  he  has  the  ability  or  the  industry  to 
prove  is  often  tempted  at  the  conclusion  to  state  as  his 
decision  something  weaker  than  that  which  he  started  out 
to  prove,  that  is,  to  use  a  "  qualifying  conclusion." 

The  student  who  undertook  to  prove  that  "  Lamb's  Esti- 
mate of  the  Artificial  Comedy  of  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury was  Incorrect,"  and  whose  headings  were  evidently 
arranged  with  this  in  mind,  closed  his  brief  with  the  weak 
conclusion :  — 

VI.  Lamb'  did  not  mean  what  he  said. 

In  this  case  the  conclusion  pretty  accurately  summed 
up  what  the  writer  really  thought,  and  the  proposition 
should  have  been  rephrased  with  that  in  mind.  Another 
student  wished  to  show  that  "  Walt  Whitman  was  the 
Representative  American  Poet,"  and  after  a  few  pages  of 
very  slight  evidence,  and  still  slighter  reasoning,  he  came 
to  this  conclusion :  — 

I.  Walt  Whitman  was  thoroughly  American. 
II.  He  was  a  true  poet. 

In  this  case  the  writer's  conclusion  was  fully  as  strong 
as  his  weak  argument  justified,  and  accurately  phrased  the 
deduction  to  be  drawn  from  the  evidence  presented ;  but 


QUALIFYING  CONCLUSIONS  255 

a  more  painstaking  student  would  have  found  evidence 
that  made  it  not  unreasonable  to  ask  a  reader  to  accept 
the  proposition  taken  at  the  outset. 

When  a  student  is  tempted  to  qualify  a  conclusion  in 
this  way,  he  may  be  sure  of  one  of  two  things :  either  as 
in  the  latter  instance  he  has  not  supported  his  case  as 
strongly  as  he  could,  and  revision  will  make  qualification 
unnecessary;  or,  as  the  first  instance  shows,  he  has  asserted 
more  than  he  really  believes,  that  is,  his  analysis  of  the 
work  to  be  done  is  faulty  and  he  must  start  anew,  care- 
fully pointing  out  to  a  reader  in  his  introduction  why  he 
can  treat  only  the  modified  form  of  the  original  question. 
A  writer  should  never,  of  course,  under  any  circumstances, 
if  he  feels  that  the  work  done  calls  for  qualification,  state 
a  conclusion  unqualifiedly.  He  should  face  the  unsatis- 
factoriness  of  his  work  and  searching,  in  the  two  ways 
suggested  above,  for  the  place  where  his  fault  lies,  remedy 
it  by  supplying  evidence  or  by  undertaking  to  prove  less. 

Study  of  the  conclusion,  then,  has  shown  that :  The  Con- 
clusion should  state  concisely  the  steps  by  which  the  decision 
is  reached.  (Rule  XVI.) 

The  Conclusion  should  never  contain  new  evidence.  (Rule 
XVII.) 

The  decision  should  never  qualify  the  proposition  but 
should  be  an  affirmation  or  denial  of  it  in  its  original  form. 
(Rule  XVIII.) 

Rules  for  Brief -Drawing1 

The  rules  for  briefing  already  given  may  be  conveniently 
tabulated  as  follows :  — 

1  These  rules  should  be  memorized  and  in  the  class  room  may  be 
referred  to  by  number. 


256  BRIEF-DRAWING 


GENERAL 

I.  A  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  parts,  marked 
"Introduction,"  "Brief  Proper,"  and  "Conclusion" 
(p.  213). 
II.  Ideas   should    be   phrased   in   complete   statements, 

arranged  in  headings  and  subheadings  (p.  224). 
III.  The  relation  of  each  idea  to  every  other  should  be 
indicated  by  means  of  numbers,  letters,  or  other  sym- 
bols (p.  230). 
IV.  A  change  of  symbol  should  always  denote  a  change  of 

relation  (p.  230). 

V.  Headings  or  subheadings   should   never   be  marked 
twice  (p.  230). 

INTRODUCTION 

VI.  The  Introduction  should  contain  all  the  information 
necessary   for   an  intelligent   reading   of    the    Brief 
Proper  (p.  222). 
VII.  The  Introduction  should  always  contain  a  statement 

of  the  Special  Issues  (p.  222). 

VIII.  In  the  Introduction  ideas  bearing  upon  the  truth  or 
the  falsity  of  the  proposition  in  dispute  should  be 
so  phrased  as  not  to  produce  immediate  discussion 
(p.  225). 

IX.  In  the  Introduction  the  connectives  "for"  and  "be- 
cause "  should  be  avoided  (p.  225). 

BRIEF  PROPER 

X.  In  the  Brief  Proper  every  main  heading  should  read 
as  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  proposition,  and  every  sub- 
heading as  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  heading  to  which 
it  is  subordinate,  never  as  mere  explanation  (p.  243). 
XI.  The  relation  between  subheadings  or  series  of  subhead- 
ings and  their  headings  is  never  expressed  by  "  hence  " 
or  "therefore,"  but  by  "for"  or  "because"  (p.  245). 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  C  257 

XII.  Subheadings  should  be  arranged  in  the  order  of  climax, 
unless  this  order  violates  the  logical  order  (p.  242). 

XIII.  Each  heading  or  subheading  should  contain  but  a 
single  proposition  (p.  247). 

XIV.  Refutation  should  be  so  phrased  as  to  make  the  objec- 
tion perfectly  clear  (p.  251). 

XV.  Refutation  of  objections,  not  to  the  proposition,  but 
to  details  of  proof,  should  meet  such  objections  where 
they  arise  (p.  233). 

CONCLUSION 

XVI.  The  Conclusion  should  state  concisely  the  steps  by 

which  the  decision  is  reached  (p.  255). 
XVII.  The  Conclusion  should  never  contain  new  evidence 

(p.  255). 

XVIII.  The  decision  should  never  qualify  the  proposition  but 
should  be  an  affirmation  or  denial  of  it  in  its  original 
form  (p.  255). 

Brief  0 

RESOLVED  :  That  the  Annexation  of  Canada  by  Treaty  with 
G-reat  Britain  would  be  Economically  Advantageous  to 
the  United  States 

INTRODUCTION 

L  The  question  as  to  the  desirability  of  annexing  Canada 
is  one  of  great  interest  in  many  quarters,  in  that 
A.  There  is  much   apprehension   that   the  commercial 
conditions  now  existing  between  the  two  countries 
do  not  tend  to  bring  about  the  best  possible  results, 
in  that 

1.  The  Alaskan  Boundary  dispute  was  attended  by 
considerable  ill  feeling  on  both  sides. 

2.  The  Atlantic  Fisheries  have  been  the  cause  of 
constant  dispute  and  much  ill  feeling. 

1 


258  BRIEF-DRAWING 

3.  Canada  recently  established  a  preferential  tariff 

in  favor  of  Great  Britain. 

II  There  have  always  been  people  who  have  thought  that 
annexation  would  be  advantageous,  in  that 

A.  Two   attempts  were   made   by  early  New  England 
settlers  to  acquire  Canada. 

B.  The  combined  forces  of  English  troops  and  Colonists, 
under  Wolfe,  captured  Quebec  and  annexed  Canada 
in  1759. 

C.  Annexation  sentiment  has  been  shown  on  both  sides 
at  different  periods  since  that  time,  in  that 

1.  In  1849   a  large  number  of   leading   Canadians 
signed  a  manifesto  in  favor  of  annexation. 

2.  It  is  certain  the  matter  of  annexation  was  brought 
up  at  Washington  the  following  year. 

3.  It  was  hastily  considered  then  only  because  the 
more  vital   question  of   slavery  was  also  under 
discussion. 

4.  It  is  now  asserted  by  many  writers  that  the  abro- 
gation of  our  Reciprocity  policy  with  Canada  in 
1866  and  the  substitution  of  a  high  protective 
tariff  was  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  annexa- 
tion, in  that 

a.  It  would  foster  a  desire  for  annexation. 

5.  Annexation  was  much  discussed  in  one  form  or 
another  during  the  •  eighties. 

6.  As  late  as  1891  the  Liberal  party  of  Canada  made 
an  open  issue  of  annexation. 

III.  In   brief  form,  the   contentions   of  the   two  sides   are 
these : 

A.  Those 'who  favor  annexation  hold  the  following  views  : 
1.  Our  tariff  is  unfair  to  Canada,  in  that 

a.  A  comparison  of  our  tariff  with  Canada's  shows 
our  average  tariff  on  Canadian  goods  to  be  49  °/0 
while  her  average  tariff  on  our  goods  is  only 
26%. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  C  259 

b.  Statistics  show  that  free  imports  into  Canada 
from  the  United  States  exceed  free  imports 
into  the  United  States  from  Canada  by  over 
400%  annually. 

2.  Our  tariff  is  really  harmful  in  many  cases,  in  that 

a.  It  tends  to  keep  out  iron,  coal,  fish,  lumber,  etc. 

b.  These  articles  are  very  extensively  used  in  the 
United  States. 

3.  Annexation,  by  removing  all  tariff,  would  remove 
all  evils  caused  by  tariff. 

4.  Annexation  would  increase  our  home  trade  and 
our  foreign  trade. 

5.  Annexation   would   give   us   the  vast  wealth   of 
Canada. 

B.  Those  who  oppose  annexation  hold  the  following  views : 

1.  The  tariff  is  not  unfair  to  Canada,  in  that 

a.  It  is  necessary  to  equalize  the  difference  in  cost 
of  production  in  the  two  countries. 

2.  The  tariff  as  a,  whole  is  not  harmful,  in  that 

a.  There  are  many  cases  where  it  is  absolutely 
necessary. 

3.  Allowing  that  the  tariff  is  harmful  in  some  cases, 
annexation  is  not  the  proper  remedy,  in  that 

a:  In  removing  these  evils  it  will  bring  greater 
evils,  in  that 

i.  By  removing  all  tariff  it  will  hurt  our  pro- 
ducers in  many  cases. 

b.  There  are  better  remedies  than  annexation. 

4.  The   argument    that   annexation   would    increase 
the  wealth  of  the  United  States  is  faulty,  in  that 

a.  The  wealth  of  developed  Canada  is  only  in  a 
fair  proportion  to  our  own,  when  considered  on 
the  basis  of  population. 

b.  The   vast   natural   wealth   of   Canada,  as   yet 
undeveloped,   is   counterbalanced   by  an  enor- 
mous national  debt. 


260  BRIEF-DRAWING 

IV.  We  can  limit  our  argument  somewhat,  in  that 

A.  Any  argument  as  to  the  possibility  of  annexation, 
devolving  upon  the  desire  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada  for  annexation  and  upon  the  willingness  of 
Great  Britain  to  give  up  Canada,  is  extraneous,  in 
that 
1.  Our  discussion  is  on  the  advantages  and  not  at 

all  on  the  possibility  of  annexation. 
£.  Any  argument  where  annexation  is  considered  on 
any  other  than  a  treaty  basis  is  extraneous,  in  that 
1.  Our  discussion  is  on  an  express  treaty  basis. 

C.  Any '  argument   regarding   possible    Canadian   Inde- 
pendence or  Imperial  Confederation  is  extraneous, 
in  that 

1.  Our  question  deals  with  the  advantages  to  the 
United  States  only. 

2.  Canadian    Independence    could    not    benefit    the 
United  States. 

3.  Imperial  Confederation,  which  looks  to  one  all- 
powerful  central    government    to   include    Great 
Britain  and  all  her  dependencies,  could  not  bene- 
fit the  United  States. 

D.  All  other  arguments  regarding  advantages  to  Canada 
are  extraneous,  in  that 

1.  They  are  entirely  outside  of  our  discussion. 

E.  All  arguments  as  to  social  or  political  advantages  are 
extraneous,  in  that 

1.  Our  question  deals  with  the  economic  advantages 
only. 

F.  Any  argument  against  the  assumption  that  our  pro- 
tective tariff  policy  will  be  maintained  is  extraneous, 
in  that 

1.  It  must  be  admitted  that  all  indications  point  to 
its  maintenance,  in  that 

a.  Trade  statistics  show  that  since  1861  our  policy 
has  continued  to  be  protective. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  C  261 

b.  The  people  desire  protection,  in  that 

i.  Since  1861  they  have  always  elected  a  majority 

of  Republicans  in  the  Senate. 
ii.  The  Senate  virtually  controls  our  trade  policy. 
2.  It  is  essentially  the  ground  of  difference  in  our 

argument. 

Gr.  We  might  grant,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  either 
Reciprocity  or  Free  Trade  —  commercial  union  only 
—  with  Canada  would  have  all  the  advantages  of 
annexation,  in  that 

1.  An  argument  merely  to  the  effect  that  Reciprocity 
or  Free  Trade  with  Canada  would  be  economically 
advantageous,  even  if  conclusively  proved,  would 
not  disprove  one  fact  in  our  present  discussion. 

2.  In  fact  it  would  admit  to  a  large  extent  the  truth 
of  these  facts,  in  that 

a.  It  is  evident  that  these  three  methods  —  annex- 
ation, Reciprocity,  and  Free  Trade  —  have  much 
in  common,  in  that 

i.  They  all  deal  largely  with  the  tariff.' 
ii.  They  all  tend  to  remove  tariff. 

3.  Moreover,  we  are  in  no  way  discussing  the  com- 
parative advantages  of  annexation  —  or  its  advan- 
tages relative  to  trade  policies  other  than  that  now 
existing. 

H.  Yet  if  it  can  be  proved  that  annexation  offers  not 
only  all  the  advantages  of  Reciprocity  or  Free  Trade 
but  additional  ones  as  well,  our  case  will  be  thereby 
strengthened. 
V.  Then  our  special  issues  are  these  : 

A.  Does  our  present  tariff  make  our  commercial  rela- 
tions with  Canada  precarious  ? 

B.  Is  our  present  tariff  harmful  to  ourselves  as  above  ? 
(7.   Will    the   annexation   of    Canada   remove    existing 

tariff  evils  ? 
D.    Will  the  annexation  of  Canada  benefit  our  home  trade  ? 


262  BRIEF-DRAWING 

E.  Will  the  annexation  of  Canada  increase  our  foreign 
trade  ? 

F.  Can  we  consider  the  wealth  of  Canada  as  an  advan- 
tage of  annexation  ? 

G.  Will   the   annexation   of   Canada,   by  removing   all 
tariff,  hurt  our  producers  ? 

H.  Is  a  comparison  of  the  advantages  of  annexation 
with  those  of  Reciprocity  and  Free  Trade  in  favor 
of  annexation  ? 

BRIEF  PROPER 

From   an  economic   standpoint  Annexation  would  be 
tageous,  for 

A.  Our  present  tariff  makes  our  commercial  relations  with 
Canada  precarious,  for 

1.  The  tariff  in  itself  is  unfair,  for 

a.  Our  tariff  averages  49%  to  Canada's  26%. 

b.  Our  free  list  is  much  smaller  than  Canada's. 

2.  Trade  figures  show  it  to  be  unfair,  for 

a.  In    1903    free   imports    into   Canada    from   the 
United  States  amounted  to  $69,066,872,  while 
free  imports  from  Canada  into  the  United  States 
amounted  to  only  $15,991,684. 

b.  In  the  same  year  our  total  exports  into  Canada 
amounted  to  $123,266,788,  while  her  total  ex- 
ports into  the  United  States  amounted  to  only 
$71,784,000. 

3.  The  Canadians  evidently  realize  this  unfairness,  for 
a.  The  preferential  tariff  on  British  goods,  which 

was  placed  at  25%  in  1897  and  raised  to 
in  1900,  was  aimed  at  us,  for 
i.    Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  practi- 
cally monopolize  Canadian  trade. 

4.  It  is  in  Canada's  power  to  equalize  these  tariff  and 
trade  conditions,  for 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  C  263 

a.  She  can  cut  down  her  generous  free  list. 

b.  She  can  make  her  tariff  as  prohibitive  as  ours,  for 
i.  The  argument  that  Canada  dares  not  put  a 

prohibitive  tariff  on  our  goods  because  she 
needs  them  is  untenable,  for 
t.  Our  principal  Canadian  exports  are  cotton, 
iron    and    steel,    farm    products,   tropical 
fruits,  tobacco,  coal,  and  lumber. 
v.  Great  Britain  could  supply  her  with  iron 
and  steel  in  every  form,  as  well  as  with 
all  manufactures  of  cotton. 
w.  Cuba  and  other  of  the  West  Indies  could 
supply  her  with  tobacco  and  tropical  fruits. 
x.  Great  Britain  could  supply  anthracite  coal 

in  abundance. 

y.  Canada  herself  has  all  the  bituminous  coal, 
farm  products,  and  lumber  she  needs,  as 
her  export  trade  in  these  articles  shows. 
z.  Raw  cotton  alone  Canada  actually  needs. 
B.  Our  tariff  is  harmful  in  many  cases,  for 

1.  It  is  almost  prohibitive  on  many  articles  which  are 
really  needed  in  the  United  States,  for 
a.  The  bituminous  coal  of  Nova  Scotia  is  needed  by 
hundreds  of  factories  in  New  England,  for 
i.  It  would  be  far  cheaper  than  our  coal,  for 
x.  The  important  item  of  transportation  would 
be  greatly  reduced,  for 

m.  Nova   Scotia   is    nearer   than    our   own 

mines  to  almost  all  New  England  points. 

n.  There  is  a  short  and  direct  pcean  route 

to  New  England  ports. 

y.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  practically 
all  of  the  Canadian  coal  exported,  amount- 
ing in  1903  to  1,785,720  tons,  was  used  in 
New  England,  in  spite  of  our  high  tariff  on 
coal. 


264  BRIEF-DRAWING 

b.  The  duty  on  bituminous  coal  is  practically  pro- 
hibitive, for 

i.  It  costs  at  our  mines  at  the  present  time 

about  $1.04  per  ton. 
ii.  Our  duty  is  now  67  cents  per  ton. 
Hi.  In  1903,  as  an  instance,  only  1,785,720  tons, 

or  less  than  1%  of  our  own  production  of 

238,877,182  tons,  entered  the  United  States 

from  Canada. 

c.  Canadian  fish  are  needed  in  the  United  States, 
for 

*.  A  comparison  with  other  countries  shows  that 
even  after  allowing  for  our  high  protective 
tariff  we  are  paying  two  or  three  times  too 
much  for  our  fish. 

ii.  Canadian  fish  would  tend  to  lower  our  prices, 
for 

x.  Our  fishermen  as  well  as  Canadian  fisher- 
men now  suffer  from  high  tariff,  for 
m.  Three-quarters    of    our    fish    product 
comes  from  the  New  England  Fish- 
eries. 
n.  Their  only  reliable  bait  grounds  are  in 

Canadian  waters. 
o.  Canada    now   sells   this    bait   to   our 

fishermen. 

p.  She  also  imposes  licenses  which  it  is 
estimated  amount  to  $150  to  even  our 
smallest  fishing  vessels. 
y.  It  naturally  follows  that  the  people  have 

to  pay  for  this  extra  cost  of  production. 
z.  Canada  would    throw   her    bait   grounds 
open  to  our  fishermen  for  the  privilege  of 
selling  in  our  markets. 

d.  The  tariff  on  fish  is  practically  prohibitive,  for 
i.  It  amounts  to  30%  or  over  in  all  cases. 


GOOD  BRIEF -BRIEF  C  265 

ii.  As  an  instance,  in  1903  $2,859,225  worth 
of  dutiable  Canadian  fish,  or  about  7%  of 
our  own  product  of  $40,000,000,  entered  our 
markets. 

e.  Canadian    lumber    is   needed    in   the    United 
States,  for 

i.  Our  forests  are  rapidly  thinning  out  under 
the  present  demand  upon  them,  for 
x.  Taking  one  year  at  random,  in  1899  there 
were  cut  from  our  forests  40,000,000,000 
feet,  or  over  100,000,000  tons. 
y.  Our  Bureau  of  Forestry  states  that  our 
supply  of  the  more  useful  kinds  of  timber 
is  becoming  exhausted  under  the  heavy 
demand. 

z.  It  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  our 
supply  of  white  pine,  in  particular,  is 
now  practically  exhausted. 

f.  Our  tariff  on  lumber  is  practically  prohibitive, 
for 

i.  It  amounts  to  $2  per  1000  feet. 
ii.  Our  dutiable  lumber  imports  from  Canada 
in  1903,  as  an  instance,  amounted  to  4,211,866 
tons,  or  about  4%  of  our  own  production  of 
100,000,000  tons. 

Hi.  Statistics  show  that  over  one-half  of  this  was 
white  pine,  our  supply  of  which  is  exhausted. 
iv.  A  large  part  if  not  all  of  the  remainder  was 
only  possible  because  of  much  nearer  sup- 
ply points  with  their  correspondingly  lower 
freight  charges. 

C.  These  tariff  evils  would  be  removed  by  annexation,  for 
1.  The  tariff  would  be  removed  altogether,  for 

a.  Canada  would  then  be  part  of  the  United  States. 

b.  The  constitutional  law  of  the  United  States  pre- 
vents anv  interstate  tariff. 


266  BRIEF-DRAWING 

D.  Thus,  with,  tariff  removed,  our  home  trade  would  increase 
naturally,  for 

1.  Our  markets  would  have  the  preference  on  all  Cana- 
dian products. 

2.  We  should  get  all  of  Canada's  trade  now  coming  under 
the  head  of  imports  into  Canada,  for 

a.  We  could  supply   them  with   practically  every- 
thing they  require,  for 

i.  Our  present  exports  show  that  our  producers 
compete  with  foreign  producers  on  all  articles 
needed  by  Canada. 

b.  Foreign  competition  would  be  slight,  for 

i.  There  would  be  no  preferential  tariffs  to  for- 
eign countries,  for 
x.  Our  policy  is  one  of  protection. 

ii.  All  of  our  great  industries  now  compete  with 
the  world,  for 
x.  Our  export  trade  conclusively  proves  this. 

E.  The  wealth  of  the  United  States  would  be  very  mate- 
rially increased  by  annexation,  for 

1.  Developed  Canada  has  a  very  considerable  wealth,  for 

a.  She  has  two  of  the  greatest  railroad  systems  of 
the  world,  for 

i.  She  has  the  Grand  Trunk  Eailway  with  its 

3000  miles  of  road. 

ii.  She  has  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railway  with  its 
6000  miles  of  road. 

b.  She  has  great  developed  industries,  for 

i.  The  industries  of  a  country  are  shown  by  her 

export  trade. 
ii.  Canadian  exports  in  1903  amounted  to  $225,- 

849,724. 

iii.  From  the  latest  figures  obtainable,  Canada's 
manufacturing  industry  in  1891  had  a  total 
paid  capital  of  $353,000,000,  with  an  output 
of  $475,445,705. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  C  267 

c.  The  argument  that  the  net  debt  of  Canada  is  very 
large  in  proportion  to  her  population  is  not  a 
strong  objection,  for 

i.  Although  it  amounts  to  about  $50  per  capita,  for 
x.  Her  net  debt  in  1901  was  $266,054,711  and 

her  population  5,338,883, 

i'.  Yet  we  deny  that  it  is  a  strong  economic  argu- 
ment against  annexation,  for 
x.  Our  own   debt  amounts  to  about  $20  per 
capita,  for 

m.  Our  population  in  1900  was  76,149,386. 
n.  Our  net  debt  in  1902  was  $1,524,773,389, 
for 

i.  We  have  a  right  to  add  to  our  national 
net  debt  of  $1,524,773,000  in  1902 
the  net  debt  of  the  different  states, 
approximately  $235,000,000  in  1902, 
because  the  net  Canadian  debt  in- 
cludes the  Dominion  and  the  Prov- 
ince debts. 

y.  If  added  to  our  own  debt,  this  $266,054,711 
Canadian  debt  would  only  make  our  debt 
$22  per  capita  for  an  increased  population 
of  about  81,400,000. 

z.  Moreover,  this  large  national  debt  is  a  defi- 
nite liability  which  would  be  considered  and 
allowed  for  in  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  for 
m.  We  are  discussing  this  question  on  an 
express  treaty  basis. 

2.  The  vast  undeveloped  natural  wealth  of  Canada,  in 
lumber,  minerals,  fertile  soil,  and  in  natural  water 
ways  for  transportation,  is  beyond  even  the  possi- 
bility of  doubt. 

3.  This  natural  wealth  would  be  developed  by  our  capi- 
tal and  enterprise,  for 

a.  Our  own  country  may  be  taken  as  a  parallel  case. 


268  BRIEF-DRAWING 

b.  No  one  can  deny  the  marvelous  growth  and  devel- 
opment of  the  United  States. 

F.  As  far  as  the  export  trade  of  a  country  shows  the  eco- 
nomic wealth  we  should  not  lose  by  annexation,  for 

1.  Our  export  trade  would  be  increased,  for 

a.  Our  export  trade  with  Canada,  amounting  in  1903 
to  $123,266,788,  would  become  interstate  trade. 

b.  Of  Canada's  total  export  trade  in  1903  of  $225,- 
849,724,  only  $71,784,000  which  came  into  the 
United  States  would  become  interstate  trade. 

c.  As  the  figures  above  are  indicative  of  the  general 
trade,  we  may  assume  an  annual  gain  in  exports 
of    about   $31,000,000,   the    difference    between 
$154,000,000  and  $123,000,000. 

G.  The  argument  that  annexation,  by  opening  our  markets 
to  Canadian  competition,  would  hurt  our  manufacturers 
and  producers,  is  worthless,  for 

1.  Iron,  coal,  lumber,  fish,  and  farm  products  are  the 
principal  products  of  Canada. 

2.  Canadian  iron  could  not  hurt  our  producers  or  our 
manufacturers,  for 

a.  Our  iron  industry  leads  the  world,  for 

i.  Our  export  trade  in  1899,  as  an  instance,  on 
all  iron  and  steel  and  manufactures  of  iron 
and  steel,  amounted  to  $96,642,467. 
ii.  This  shows  that  we  underbid  our  foreign  com- 
petitors in  their  own  markets. 

3.  Canadian  coal  could  not  injure  our  producers,  for 
a.  Although  they  would   lose  the  bituminous   coal 

trade  in  New  England,  yet 

a'.  They  would  make  this  up  in  Canadian  trade,  for 

i.  Our   coal   centers   are  much  nearer   to  many 

points  in  Canada  than  are  Canadian  coal  centers. 

ii.  The   heavy  freight   charges,  which  lost   New 

England  to  our  producers,  would  thus  give  them 

new  trade  in  Canada,  for 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  C  269 

x.  In  this  case  it  would  act  against  the  Canadian 
producers. 

4.  Canadian  lumber  cannot  hurt  our  producers,  for 

a.  We  are  able  to  compete  against  Canadian  lumber, 
for 

i.  In   1903   we   imported    lumber   into   Canada 
amounting  to  $6,110,351. 

5.  The  argument  that  our  producers  would  be  unable 
to   compete   against   Canadian   farm  products   and 
Canadian  fish  does  not  hold  in  case  of  annexation,  for 

a.  In  1903  our  exports  of  farm  products  to  Canada 
amounted  to  $19,380,458. 

b.  As  we  have  shown,  our  fishermen  could  produce 
more  cheaply  than  now,  for 

i.  They  would  have  free  access  to  Canadian  bait 

grounds. 

ii.  Canada  would  put  no  obstacles  in  their  way  as 
now. 

c.  Canadian  fishermen  could  not  produce  as  cheaply 
as  now,  for 

i.  The   present   bounty    on    fish,    amounting   to 
$160,000  annually,  would  be  removed. 

d.  Moreover,  the  cost  of  production  on  fish  and  farm 
products,  as  well  as  all  other  articles,  would  be 
approximately  the  same,  for 

i.  The  United  States  and  Canada  would  then  be 

one  country. 

ii.  The  economic  conditions  —  the  trade  and  cur- 
rency  laws,  the  cost  of  living,  etc.  —  which 
determine    the    cost    of    production    largely, 
would  be  the  same  in  both  countries,  for 
x.  They  must  be  practically  the  same  in  the 

same  country. 

H.  We  can  strengthen  our  argument  for  annexation  by 
comparing  annexation  with  Reciprocity  and  Free 
Trade,  for 


270  BRIEF-DRAWING 

1.  Such   a   comparison  will   show   that   all   of   these 
methods    improve    trade    conditions    through    the 
tariff,  for 

a.  They  all  aim  to  remove  or  partly  remove  the 
tariff. 

2.  It  will  show  that  in  some  cases  any  one  of  these 
methods  would  prove  equally  effective,  for 

a.  In  all  cases  where  the  tariff  is  harmful  it  could 
be  remedied  by  any  one  of  them. 

3.  It  will  show  that  our  export  trade  would  be  increased 
by  any  one  of  these  methods,  for 

a.  By  Reciprocity  or  Free  Trade  our  export  trade 
with  Canada  would  be  increased. 

b.  By  annexation  we  should  have  all  the  export 
trade  of  Canada,  while  our  present  export  trade 
with  her  would  become  home  trade. 

4.  It  will  prove  that  only  annexation  would  make  all 
tariff;  conditions  fair  to  both  countries,  for 

a.  Of  these  three  methods  only  annexation  —  polit- 
ical union  —  could  ensure  the  economic  conditions 
being  approximately  the  same  in  both  countries. 

b.  Only  with  equal  economic  conditions  would  Cana- 
dian competition  be  entirely  fair  to  our  producers 
in  all  cases. 

5.  It  will  prove  that  only  by  annexation  could  the  vast 
wealth  of  Canada  benefit  the  United  States. 

6.  It  will  prove  that  all  the  advantages  of  either  Reci- 
procity or  Free  Trade  would  be  realized  by  annexa- 
tion, for 

a.  Reciprocity  or  Free  Trade  could  be  advantageous 
only  through  change  of  tariff,  for 

i.  They  both  aim  exclusively  at  the  tariff. 

b.  All  advantages  through  change  of  tariff  are  among 
the  advantages  of  annexation,  for 

i.  By  removing  all  tariff,  as  I  have  shown,  annex- 
ation would  eliminate  all  tariff  evils. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  C  271 

ii.  By  equalizing  conditions  which  control  the  cost 
of  production,  as  I  have  shown,  annexation 
would  not  develop  other  trade  evils. 

CONCLUSION 

The  annexation  of  Canada  by  treaty  with  Great  Britain 
would  be  economically  advantageous  to  the  United  States. 

A.  Better  commercial  relations  are  needed  between  the 
United  States  arid  Canada,  since 

1 .  Our  present  tariff  is  both  unfair  to  Canada  and  harm- 
ful to  ourselves. 

B.  Annexation  would  establish  better  commercial  relations 
between  the  two  countries,  since 

1.  By  removing  all  tariff  it  would  remove  all  evils. 

C.  Annexation  would  be  advantageous  in  other  ways,  since 

1.  It  would  increase  our  economic  wealth. 

2.  It  would  bring  no  new  trade  evils,  since 
a.  It  would  equalize  economic  conditions. 

3.  It  would  increase  our  home  trade  and  our  foreign 
trade. 

D.  Moreover,  it  would  be  the  most  advantageous  method 
to  better  our  trade  relations  with  Canada,  since 
1.  A  comparison  with   the   two   other   methods    pro- 
posed—  Reciprocity  and  Free  Trade  —  is  altogether 
in  favor  of  annexation. 


272  BRIEF-DRAWING 


Brief  D 

Can  a  Voter  better  Serve  his  Country  by  Consistently  Sup 
porting  one  Party  than  by  being  an  Independent  Voter  f 1 

x> 
INTRODUCTION 

l*° 
I.  The  election  of  1904'  provoked  considerable  discussion 

regarding  the  independent  voter. 

II.  There  have  always  been  some  independent  men  in  our 
country  who  have  preferred  not  to  ally  themselves  per- 
manently with  any  party. 

III.  Since  the  Civil  War  certain  evils  arising  from  the  par- 
ties have  become  very  apparent. 

IV.  These  evils  have  resulted  in  an  increase  in  the  number 
of  independents.2 

V.  With  this  increase  has  come  a  discussion  of  the  advisa- 
bility of  being  an  independent  or  a  party  man. 
VI.  In  the  discussions  that  have  arisen  the  party  men  have 
upheld  the  following  three  contentions  : 

A.  That  party  fealty  results  in  better  policies,  in  that 

1.  Independents  are  mere  critics,  not  actual  politi- 
cal workers. 

2.  Party  men  are  more  influential  than  independents 
in  determining  the  policies  of  the  parties. 

B.  That  party  fealty  results  in  better  officials,  in  that 

1.  Independents    throw    away    their    nominating 
power. 

2.  Independents  lose  their  opportunity  of  serving 
their  country  in  official  positions. 

1  Brief  C  and  Brief  D  are  printed  for  their  excellence  in  briefing,  and 
are  not  in  all  respects  perfect  in  their  evidential  treatment.  However,  this 
brief,  which  depends  for  its  force  on  cogent  reasoning,  may  well  be  com- 
pared with  Brief  C,  the  force  of  which  comes  from  its  convincing  presen- 
tation of  facts. 

2 North  American,  Vol.  144,  p.  653. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  D  273 

3.  Party  men  are  more  influential  than  independents 

in  electing  good  officials. 

C.  That  party  fealty  is  more  likely  to  result  in  consist- 
ently efficient  conduct  of  the  government,  in  that 

1.  Our  government  is  carried  on  by  parties. 

2.  Men  within  the  parties  are  better  fitted  than  men 
outside   to   make   the    parties   honest,    efficient 
instruments  of  government. 

3.  The  withdrawal  of  independents  leaves  the  leader- 
ship of  the  parties  to  men  of  lower  standards. 

4.  Independents  are  responsible  for  the  blocking  of 
legislation  by  officials  who  are  striving  to  gain 
votes. 

VII.  Independents  have  maintained  the  following  four  con- 
tentions : 

A.  That  independents  are  more  influential  than  are 
party  men  in  securing  the  election  of  good  officials. 

B.  That  independents  can  more  powerfully  influence 
public  opinion  than  can  party  men. 

C.  That  independents  are  more  influential  than  party 
men  in  securing  good  legislation. 

D.  That  independents  do  more  than  party  men  to  main- 
tain a  high  level  of  civic  virtue,  in  that 

1.  The  political  attitude  of  party  men  lowers  the 
standard  of  political  society. 

2.  Continued   support   of   one   party    deadens   the 
voter's  feeling  of  responsibility  for  the  govern- 
ment. 

3.  Their  position  is  more  honest  than  that  of  party 
men. 

4.  Their  position  is  more  inspiring  than  that  of 
party  men. 

VIII.  The  following  points  should  not  enter  into  the  dis- 
cussion : 

A.  Any  discussion  of  the  attitude  of  men  who  belong 
to  parties  other  than  the  two  great  parties,  in  that 


274  BRIEF-DRAWING 

1.  Such  men  possess  characteristics  of  both  party 
men  and  independents. 

a.  Although  they  are  members  of  parties,  such 
parties  usually  endure  but  a  little  while 
and  their  members  must  frequently  change 
parties. 

B.  Any  discussion  of   the  desirability  of   abolishing 
parties,  in  that 
1.  Such  a  discussion  is  impractical,  in  that 

a.  There  is  no  prospect  that  parties  will  be  done 

away  with  in  the  near  future. 
IX.  Both  sides  admit  the  following  three  points  : 

A.  That  parties  will  exist  for  a  long  time. 

B.  That  a  large  part  of  the  work  of  government  is 
carried  on  by  these  parties. 

C.  That  these  parties  often  do  not  completely  fulfill 
their  purposes,  in  that 

1.  They  frequently  do  not  express  the  will  of  the 
majority.1 

2.  They  often  put  bad  men  into  office. 

3.  They  frequently  do  not  pass  salutary  and  neces- 
sary laws.2 

4.  They  sometimes  harbor  political  corruption. 

X.  The  question  of  whether  it  is  advisable  for  a  voter  to 
be  a  party  man  or  an  independent  can  only  be  settled 
by  determining  in  which  capacity  he  can  better  serve 
his  country,  inasmuch  as 

A.  The  highest  justification  for  any  political  action  is 
the  value  of  the  service  which  it  renders  to  the 
country. 

XI.  It  is  necessary  to  know  what  political  services  to  his 
country  a  voter  should  perform. 

1  North  American,  Vol.  144,  p.  552. 

2  Ostrogorski.    Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parties. 
Vol.  II  (hereafter  designated  by  Ostrogorski),  p.  261. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  D  275 

A.  Political  speakers  emphasize  two  duties. 

1.  To  select  the  right  policies  of  action  for  the 
government  to  pursue. 

2.  To  elect   the  best  officials   to  carry  out  these 
policies. 

B.  Experience  of  the  forcing  of  the  action  of  officials 
by  the  parties,1  and   of   the   malpractices    of   evil 
officials,  teaches  another  duty. 

1.  To  enable  honest  officials  to  act  to  the  best  of 
their  ability  and  to  force  dishonest  officials  to 
act  honestly. 

C.  Men  skilled  in  government  teach  us  that  there  is 
still  another  duty. 

1.  To  maintain  a  high  level  of  public  spirit  and 
justice,  which  shall  incite  the  citizen  to  keen 
interest  in  public  affairs  and  cause  him  to  act 
in    political    affairs    honestly    even   when   such 
action  involves  self-sacrifice,2  in  that 
a.  The  life  of  republics  depends  upon  the  main- 
tenance of  these  qualities.8 
XII.  These  four  duties  comprise  at  least  a  major  part  of 

the  political  duties  of  a  citizen. 

XIII.  That  voter  is  better  serving  his  country  who  does  more 
effectually  than  his  fellow  four  things. 

A.  Selects  the  right  policies  for  the  government. 

B.  Elects  good  officials. 

C.  Promotes  good  action  by  officials. 

D.  Maintains  a  high  level  of  civic  virtue. 

1  Idem.   p.  140. 

2  Bryce.    American  Commonwealth,  Vol.  II  (hereafter  designated  by 
Bryce),  p.  450. 

3  Idem.   p.  450. 


276  BRIEF-DRAWING 


BRIEF  PROPER 

The  independent  voter  can  better  serve  his  country  politically 
than  can  the  party  man,  for 

I.  The  contention  that  the  party  man  can  more  effectually 
aid  the  government  to  adopt  right  policies  than  can 
the  independent  is  untrue,  for 

A.  The  independent  can  see  more  clearly  what  policies 
are  best,  for 

1.  He  looks  at  political  matters  from  an  unbiased 
standpoint. 

2.  The  party  man  is  prejudiced,  for 

(a)  He  is  influenced  by  the   past  policy  of  the 
party. 

(b)  He  fears  non-conformity  with  the  party. 

3.  The  party  man  becomes  incapacitated  for  forming 
judgments,  for 

(a)  He  forms  a  habit  of  deferring  personal  judg- 
ment to  the  judgment  of  the  party. 

B.  The  independent  can  better  agitate  for  new  policies,  for 

1.  He  is  hampered  by  no  partisan  considerations. 

2.  The  party  man  is  hampered  by  partisan  considera- 
tions, for 

(a)  He  fears  to  proclaim  beliefs  which  might  injure 
the  party,  for 

(i)  He  is  influenced  by  the  desire  for  party 
success  at  elections. 

C.  The  independent's  ability  to  see  what  governmental 
policies  are  necessary  and  to  arouse  public  interest 
in  these  policies  is  of  great  political  importance,  for 
1.  Many  of  our  great  political  measures  have  sprung 

up  and  gained  power  through  such  individuals,  for 

(a)  The  agitation  against  slavery  began  in  this  way. 

(b)  The    agitation    for    the    intervention    of   the 
United  States  in  Cuba  had  such  an  origin. 

(c)  Civil  service  reform  started  thus. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  D  277 

• 

2.  The  public  opinion  aroused  by  such  agitation  often 

forces  parties  to  take  up  the  policies. 

3.  Public  opinion  can  often  force  the  government  to 
adopt   policies  which   are   not   contended   for  by 
parties. 

D.  The  contention  that  party  men  are  more  influential 
than  independents  in  determining  the  party  policies 
is  not  of  great  significance,  for 

1.  The  party  policies,  as  expressed  in  the  platforms, 
are  inadequate  bases  for  legislation,  for 

(a)  They  frequently  ignore  the  most   important 
questions  of  the  time,  for 

(i)  In  1840  the  Whig  party  ignored  the  ques- 
tion of  Texas. 

(ii)  Before  the  Civil  War  both  parties  dodged 
the  question  of  slavery  for  some  time. 

(iii)  In  1880  and  1884  the  Democratic  party 
ignored  the  tariff  question. 

(b)  The  most  important  questions  are  frequently 
treated  in  such  a  way  as  to  commit  the  party 
to  no  real  action,  for 

(i)  The  parts  of  the  platforms  dealing  with 
trusts  and  monopolies  in  the  last  few 
years  have  been  phrased  in  practically 
meaningless  language. 

(c)  The  nominees  are  often  not  expected  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  the  platforms. 

2.  It  is  largely  untrue  that  a  party  man  can  have 
more  influence  than  can  the  independent  in  deter- 
mining the  party  policy,  for 

(a)  The    ordinary    party    man    has    no    share    in 
making  the  platform,  for 

(i)  Platforms  are  made  out  in  conferences  of 
the  party  leaders. 

(b)  The  wishes  of  independents  are  influential  in 
determining  the  platforms,  for 


278  BRIEF-DRAWING 

(i)  Party  platforms   are  largely  designed  to 
catch  votes,  because 
(x)  The  parties  desire   primarily  success 

at  the  polls. 

(ii)  In  making  these  platforms  the  independ- 
ent vote  is  largely  considered,  for 
(x)  The  independent  vote  is  the  unknown 

quantity  in  elections. 

(c)  The  wishes  of  party  men  are  not  particularly 
influential,  for 

(i)  The  only  fear  that  political  leaders  enter- 
tain concerning  party  men  at  elections  is 
lest  they  shall  fail  to  vote,  for 
(x)  Party  men  will  not  oppose  the  ticket. 
(ii)  Platforms  are  not  especially  designed  to 
make  indolent  voters  vote,  for 
(x)  Parades  and  political  rallies  are  ex- 
pected to  do  this. 

3.  The  contention  that  by  gaining  a  position  of  leader- 
ship an  honest,  able  party  man  can  greatly  influ- 
ence the  policy  of  his  party  is  largely  untrue,  for 
(a)  It  is  difficult  for  such  a  man  to  become  a  leader, 
for 

(i)  The  parties  are  largely  in  the  hands  of 
politicians  who  are  simply  manipulators 
of  votes. 

(if)  Such  leaders  naturally  try  to  keep  scrupu- 
lous men  out  of  commanding  positions,  for 
(x)  They  must  fear  such  men  in  power, 
for 
(I)  Such   men    are    liable    to   oppose 

their  schemes. 
(II)  Such    men    may  urge   vote-losing 

measures  upon  the  party. 
(Ill)  Such   men   may  reveal   dishonest 
dealing. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  D  279 

(b)  If  a  scrupulous  man  reaches  a  position  of  leader- 
ship, he  is  harmful  in  his  actions,  for 

(i)  The  "practical"  politicians  oppose  him. 

(c)  Scrupulous  men  who  gain  positions  of  leader- 
ship tend  to  become  themselves  "  practical " 
politicians,  for 

(i)  The  overmastering  desire  to  win  elections 
is  liable  to  overcome  them. 

(d)  Influence  in  determining  policies  is  now  exer- 
cised more  by  the  press  than  by  party  leaders. 

E.  The  independent  has  more  opportunity  than  has  the 
party  man  to  give  control  of  the  government  to  the 
party  with  the  better  platform,1  for 
1.  He  has  more  real  political  power  at  elections,  for 
(a)  He  can  vote  for  the  party  with  the  better  plat- 
form when  the  party  man  must  refrain  from 
voting,  or  support  his  own  party  whether  its 
platform  be  good  or  bad. 

II.  The  contention  that  party  men  are  more  influential  than 
independents  in  securing  the  election  of  good  officials  is 
untrue,  for 

A.  Party  men  are  not  more  influential  than  independents 
in  securing  the  nomination  of  good  men  for  office,  for 
1.  The  wishes  of  independents  strongly  influence  the 
selection  of  candidates,  for 

(a)  Candidates  are  selected  by  the  parties  for  the 
purpose  of  gaining  votes,  for 
(i)  The  personnel  of  former  candidates  shows 
that  this  is  true,  for 
(x)  Candidates  are  commonly  chosen  from 

doubtful  states. 

(y)  Candidates  are  frequently  chosen 
whose  reputation  is  not  chiefly  polit- 
ical, for 

1  In  the  inadequate  proof  of  this  heading  and  a  few  similar  cases  lies 
the  weakness  of  what  is  otherwise  an  excellent  brief. 


280  BRIEF-DRAWING 

(I)  General  Taylor   was  chosen  be- 
cause of  his  war  record. 
(II)  General   Grant  was    chosen  be- 
cause of  his  war  record. 

(III)  General  Garfield   was   largely 
chosen  because  of  his  war  record. 

(IV)  President  Roosevelt's  war  record 
forced   upon   the    Republican 
party  his   nomination   for   Gov- 
ernor  of  New  York,  and   thus 
for  Vice-President. 

(b)  There  is  a  strong  tendency  for  parties  to  try 
to  gain  the  independent  vote  by  nominating 
good  men,  because 
(i)  The   independent   vote    is    the   unknown 

quantity  in  elections. 

(ii)  Victory  or  defeat  often  depends  upon  the 
support  or  non-support  of  independents, 
for 

(x)  In  doubtful   states  the  independents 
frequently  hold  the  balance  of  power. 
(y)  In  presidential  elections  the  independ- 
ents frequently  hold  the  balance  of 
power,  for 

(I)  Cleveland's  first  and  second  elec- 
tions were  due  to  independents. 
(iii)  Where  the  result  is  certain,  a  party's  gain 
or   loss    depends    upon    the    independent 
voters. 

2.  Ordinary  party  men  cannot  exert   so   strong  an 
influence  upon  nominations,  for 
(a)  The  only  thing  that  party  leaders  need  to  do 
with  regular  party  men  is  to  get  out  the  stay- 
at-home  voters,  for 

(i)  They  know  that  party  men  will  not  oppose 
their  party. 


GOOD  BRIEF  — BRIEF  D  281 

(b)  The  selection  of  good  candidates  is  not  com- 
monly the  means  that  parties  employ  to  get 
out  the  stay-at-homes,  for 
(i)  They  use  excitement  to  do  this. 
(ii)  They  use  free  conveyances  to  do  this. 
3.  The  contention  that  the  independent  is   excluded 
from  caucuses  is  unimportant,  for 
(a)  It  is  largely  untrue,  for 

(i)  In  states  where  primaries  are  in  effective 
operation  an  independent  can  vote,  for 
(x)  In  some  of  these  states  he  can  vote 
without  any  conditions,  for 
(I)  He  can  do  so  in  Minnesota. 
(II)  He  can  do  so  in  Wisconsin. 
(y)  In   others   he   can  vote   upon   taking 
oath  that  he  has  not  voted  for  candi- 
dates of  another  party  in  a  general 
election  within  one  year  and  that  he 
intends  to  support  the  candidates  of 
the  party  at  the  next  general  election, 
for 

(I)  He  can  do  this  in  Massachusetts. 
(II)  He  can  do  this  in  New  York. 
(b)  In  states  where  nomination  is  by  caucus  it  is 
unimportant,  for 
(i)  The  nominations  are  commonly  determined 

by  leaders,  outside  ijhe  caucus. 
(ii)  A  party  man  may  be  excluded  from  caucus 
in   many  such   states  if  he   is  liable   to 
oppose  the  party  leaders,  for 
(x)  The  eligibility  of  voters   to  vote   in 
caucus    is    determined   by  the   party 
leaders. 

B.  The  independent  has  a  better  chance  to  vote  for  the 
better  nominee  at  the  elections,  for 
1.  He  can  choose  between  nominees  of  different  parties. 


282  BRIEF-DRAWING 

2.  The  party  man  can  vote  only  for  the  nominee  of 

his  party. 

C.  The  contention  that  independents  cannot  become  offi- 
cials and  give  the  government  their  service  in  official 
capacity  is  unimportant,  for 

1.  The  country  does  not  need  their  services  as  officials, 
for 

(a)  It  is  evident  that  there  are  in  the  parties  plenty 
of  able,  honest  men,  ready  to  hold  office,  for 
(i)  Lincoln,  Cleveland,  and  Roosevelt  among 

Presidents  are  admittedly  such  men. 
(ii)  Evarts,  Hoar,  Platt  of  Connecticut,  and 
Caffery  of  Louisiana  among  Senators  are 
admittedly  such  men. 

(Hi)  Reed,  Littlefield,  and  McCall  among  Repre- 
sentatives are  admittedly  such  men. 
(iv)  Russell  and  Wolcott  among  Governors  are 

admittedly  such  men. 

III.  The  independent  can  more  effectually  induce  officials  to 
work  to  the  best  of  their  ability,  for 
A.  He  can  better  remove  hindrances  to  good  officials,  for 
1.  He  is  more  able  to  intimidate  the  corrupt  politi- 
cians into  decency,  for 

(a)  The  politicians  fear  the  loss  of  power  through 
the  transference  of  the  independent  vote,  for 
(i)  Such   fear  compelled  the  passage  of  the 

"Pendleton  "  civil  service  reform  bill  in  1882. 
(ii)  The   Committee   of  Seventy  compelled  inj 
this  way  more  decent  administration  in 
New  York  City. 

(b)  The  politicians  fear  that  the  independent  will 
investigate  and  reveal  their  guilt. 

(c)  But  the  politicians  do  not  fear  the  party  men, 
for 

(i)  The  politicians  know  that  the  party  men 
will  continue  to  support  the  party. 


GOOD  BRIEF -BRIEF  D  283 

(ii)  They  know  that  the  party  men  will  hesi- 
,  tate  to  reveal  corruption  in  their  own 

party,  for 

(x)  Party  men  fear  that  such  revelations 
would  result  in  lack  of  prestige  of 
the  party. 

(y)  Before  the  investigation  of  the  postal 
frauds  under  Roosevelt,  a  large  num- 
ber of  influential  party  men  knew  of 
the  existence  of  fraud,  but  endeav- 
ored to  keep  the  matter  secret. 

B.  Independents  can  better  enable  a  good  official  to  win 
against  politicians,1  for 

1.  They  can  create  a  strong  public  opinion  in  favor 
of  the  right,2  for 

(a)  Their  position  gives  them  prestige,  for 

(i)  They  cannot  be  accused  of  agitating  from 
partisan  motives. 

2.  Such  an  opinion  is  very  powerful,  for 

(a)  It  is  very  hard  for  an  official  to  succeed  when 
opposed  by  public  opinion. 

3.  Party  men  cannot  so  well  create  such  a  public 
opinion,  for 

(a)  They  are  distrusted,  for 

(i)  They  are    open    to   the    charge    of   being 
actuated  by  partisan  motives. 

C.  The  independent  can  defeat  the  bad  official,  for 

1.  He  can  reveal  impartially  the  malpractice  and  mis- 
takes of  the  bad  official. 

2.  He  can  arouse  public  opinion  against  the  bad  official. 

D.  The  party  man  cannot  so  well  defeat  the  bad  official, 
for 

1.  The  party  man,  if  the  bad  official  is  in  his  own 
party,  is  hampered  by  his  own  partisanship. 

1  North  American,  Vol.  144,  p.  553. 

2  Bryce.    p.  287. 


284  BRIEF-DRAWING 

\ 

2.  If  *the  bad  official  belongs  to  the  other  party,  the 
party  man's  statements  are  liable  to  lie  discredited,  for 
(a)  They  are  open  to  the  charge  of  being  inspired 

by  party  feeling. 

IV.  The  independent  can  more  effectually  aid  in  maintaining 
a  high  level  of  public  spirit  and  justice  than  can  the  party 
man,  for  , 

A.  The  independent  himself  maintains  a  higher  standard, 

for 

1.  His  continual  alertness  and  political  watchfulness 
increase  his  public  spirit. 

2.  The  continued  submission  of  individual  will  to  that 
of  the  party,  by  the  party  man,  deadens  the  party 
man's  sense  of  personal  responsibility.1 

B.  The  independent's  example  is  an  inspiration  to  patriot-  ] 

ism,  for 

1.  He  gives  up  the  probability  of  holding  any  office 
for  which  his  abilities  fit  him. 

2.  He  presents  himself  as  a  mark  for  violent  attacks 
by  the  politicians,  for 

(a)  Politicians  attack  independents  more  violently 
than  they  do  members  of  the  opposing  party,  for 
(i)  Carl  Schurz   has  been  thus  violently  at- 
tacked. 
(ii)  G.  W.  Curtis  was  thus  attacked. 

3.  Such  subordination  of  private  to  public  ends  is 
always  inspiring. 

C.  The  party  man's  example  is  not  so  inspiring,  for 

1.  His   continual   following   of   one   party   has   the! 
appearance  of  servility. 

2.  He  may  be  accused  of  acting  from  false  motives,  for 
(a)  He  is  always  open  to  the  charge  of  being  an 

office-seeker. 

3.  A  charge  of  servility  or  ambition,  whether  it  be  true 
or  false,  weakens  the  inspiring  power  of  example. 

1  Ostrogorski,    p.  567, 


EXERCISES  285 


CONCLUSION 

I.  A  voter  can  better  serve  his  country  by  being  an  independ- 
ent voter  than  by  consistently  supporting  one  party,  for 

A.  The  independent  is  not  less  powerful  than  the  party 
man  in  determining  the  policy  of  the  government. 

B.  The  independent  is  not  less  powerful  than  the  party 
man  in  electing  officials. 

C.  The  independent  is  more  influential  than  the  party  man 
in  inducing  officials  to  do  their  best  work  for  the 
government. 

D.  The  independent  can  do  more  to  help-  sustain  a  high 
level  of  public  spirit  and  justice  than  can  the  party 
man. 

EXERCISES 

1.  Incorrect  briefing.  Point  out,  either  orally  or  in  writing,  the 
errors  in  the  following  bits  of  bad  briefing.  Where  possible  correct 
the  errors  in  form. 

1.  III.  The  Democrats  contend  that 

A,  All  men  are  free  and  equal,  with  equal  powers.,  hence 

1.  The  Filipino  is  capable  of  immediate  self  government  and 
a.  He  should  have  it. 

2.  B.  The  Philippine  Islands  are  at  the  gateway  of  Asia,  hence 

1.  They  form  a  convenient  and  necessary  coaling  place  for  vessels. 

2.  They  hold  the  pivotal  situation  in  the  commerce  of  the  East. 

3.  VII.  The  abandonment  will  mean  the  giving  up  of  a  naval  base  and 

^     a  commanding  position  in  Asiatic  waters. 
A.  And  we  need  a  position  in  Asiatic  waters. 


4.  1.  The  United  States  ^n  assuming  control  of  Philippines  has  assumed 

a  duty 

a.  To  Filipino. 
6.  To  mankind  in  general  for 
i.  The  good  of  the  islands, 
ii.  For  the  amelioration  of  their  inhabitants. 

5.  2.  Benedict  Arnold  protested  to  Congress  disrespectfully,  because 

a.  Congress  refused  to  reprimand  Colonel  Hazen. 

6.  1.  Arnold  committed  two  grievous  offenses,  for 

a.  They  were  recognizable  by  court-martial,  for 


286  BRIEF-DRAWING 


1.  While  in  the  camp  at  Valley  Forge  he,  without  the  knowledge 
of  the  commander-in-chief,  had  granted  a  written  permission 
for  a  vessel  belonging  to  disaffected  persons  to  proceed  from 
the  port  of  Philadelphia,  then  in  possession  of  the  enemy,  to 
any  port  of  the  United  States. 

7.  2.  After  the  battle,  Gates  refused  to  mention  Arnold  in  his  report  to* 

Congress,  for 

a.  Arnold  ignored  Gates's  authority. 

6.  He  was  too  impatient  of  command. 

8.  B.  A  reservation  for  the  Seminole  Indians  in  Florida  was  imprac- 

ticable, for 

1.  It  had  been  tried  and  had  failed,  for 

a.  There  were  no  natural  boundaries  in  Florida. 

9.  (1)  The  majority  of  the  football  players  never  become  members  of 

the  three  upper  classes,  for 

(a)  They  either  do  not  return  to  college  after  their  first  year 
"#r  they  are  not  allowed  to  play  on  the  team. 

10.  A.  A  careful  inspection  of  the  injuries  received  in  the  season  of  1902 

shows  that  more  freshmen  than  upper  classmen  have  been  injured, 
for 

I.  In  the  big  games  the  freshman  plays  against  men  of  greater 
age,  experience,  and  weight. 

11.  II.  We  should  not  argue  that  it  is  fair  to  cheat  in  examinations 

because  we  do  not  believe  in  them,  for 

C.  Seeing  that  we  enjoy  innumerable  privileges  from  a  board  of 
education  whose  standard  is  high,  and  which  only  wishes  our 
welfare,  it  is  our  duty  to  uphold  its  rules  and  regulations. 

12.  F.  The  remains  of  all  varieties  of  fish  and  of  great  whales  which 

made  their  appearance  on  the  fifth  day  should  be  found  in  rocks 
deposited  before  the  carboniferous  period ;  but 
I.  Though  fishes  are  found  in  great  number  and  variety  yet  the 
great  whales  are  absent  and  the  fishes  are  not  such  as  now  live. 

II.  The  position  is  untenable,  for 
a.  Only  two  views  are  possible. 

1.  The  animals  which  came  into  existence  on  the  fifth  day 
were  not  such  as  those  found  at  present.    (They  were 
such  as  those  from  which  the  present  animals  might  be 
developed  by  evolution.) 

2.  The  whole  hypothesis  must  be  given  up. 

x.  1  is  not  true,  for  it  is  devoid  of  any  circumstantial 
evidence  and  is  contrary  to  such  evidence  as  exists. 

y.  2  is  acceptable,  as  otherwise  there  must  have  been 
new  creations  of  which  nothing  is  said.1 

1  See  First  Lecture  on  Evolution.     Huxley.    Specimens  of  Argumen- 
tation,   p.  83. 


EXERCISES  287 


13.  IV.  The  "Miltonic  doctrine  "  is  weak,  for 

A.  1.  Lack  of  evidence. 

2.  What  evidence  there  is,  is  contrary  to  hypothesis. 

B.  Many  animals,  such  as  large  whales,  which  are  said  by  Mil- 
ton to  have  come  into  existence  at  the  beginning,  are  not  to 
be  found  in  any  bed  rock  or  other  formations,  such  as  coal, 
etc.,  therefore 

1.  They  could  not  have  existed,  for 

a.  If  they  had,  they  must  have  died  and  been  deposited 
somewhere. 

14.  II.  Milton  says  that  fishes  (whales)  and  birds  appeared  on  the  day 

before  the  terrestrial  animals  yet  this  is  proved  untrue  by  cir- 
cumstantial evidence,  for 

a.  We  find  traces  of  terrestrial  animals  in  the  Carboniferous  rocks 
whose  formation  far  antedates  that  of  the  Jurassic  formation 
in  which  we  first  find  traces  of  birds,  therefore 
1.  Either  the  animals  which  came  into  existence  on  the  fifth  day 
were  not  the  direct  ancestors  of  those  of  the  present  time,  in 
which  case  there  must  have  been  fresh  creations  of  which 
nothing  is  said  or  a  process  of  evolution  must  have  occurred ; 
or  else  the  Hypothesis  2  must  be  given  up  as  devoid  of  cir- 
cumstantial evidence  and  contrary  to  such  as  exists. 

15.  It  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  State  to  supervise  and  control 

primary  and  secondary  education 

BRIEF  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 

I.  The  welfare  of  the  State  depends  upon  the  intelligence  and  virtue 
of  its  people. 
A.  This  is  especially  true  in  a  republic. 

1.  Where  universal  suffrage  prevails. 

2.  Where  there  is  heterogeneous  population. 

II.  The  State,  for  its  own  safety,  has  the  right  to  promote  these 
qualities 

A.  By  providing  schools  for  intellectual  and  moral  training. 

B.  By  compelling  attendance  upon  them. 

C.  Such  compulsion  is  exercised 

1.  In  Germany. 

2.  In  France. 

3.  In  many  states  of  the  Union. 

III.  It  is  the  right  of  the  State  to  supervise  and  control  the  education 
of  its  youth 

A.  By  presenting  certain  branches  as  necessary  to  an  education. 

B.  By  fixing  qualifications  for  teachers. 

C.  By  requiring  proper  provision  for  health  of  pupils. 

D.  By  providing  a  system  of  instruction  to  secure  adherence  to 
the  laws. 


288  BRIEF-DRAWING 

IV.  There  is  a  necessity  for  the  exercise  of  such  supervision  and 
control  on  the  part  of  the  State 

A.  Of  schools  where  all  teaching  is  done  in  a  foreign  language 
as  in 

1.  Wisconsin. 

2.  Illinois. 

3.  Other  western  states. 

B.  Of  parochial  and  private  schools. 

V.  Therefore  for  its  welfare  and  safety  the  State  has  the  right  and 
is  under  a  necessity  to  supervise  and  control  primary  and  second- 
ary education. 

16.  Do  saloons  conducted  upon  the  plan  of  the  "  Subway  Tavern  "  in 

New  York  promote  temperance? 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  There  has  long  been  a  feeling  among  reformers  in  America  that  the 
evils  of  the  present  saloons  in  our  great  cities  ought  to  be  bettered. 

A.  Many  systems  of  reform  have  been  agitated,  such  as  the  Gothen- 
burg system,  the  Dispensary  system,  and  the  Earl  Grey  system. 

B.  The  City  Club  in  New  York  has  started  a  system  modeled 
somewhat   after  the   Earl   Grey  plan  and  has  called  it  the 
"  Subway  Tavern." 

C.  By  "promoting  temperance"  we  mean   that   the   "Subway 
Tavern  "  will  be  the  cause  of  a  marked  decrease  in  the  use 
of  intoxicating  drinks. 

D.  The  supporters  of  this  system  have  maintained  that  the  creation 
of  high-grade  saloons  will  tend  to  decrease  the  amount  of 
drunkenness,  while  those  who  oppose  it  hold  that  the  creation 
of  this  special  kind  of  saloon  will  tend  to  increase  the  moderate 
drinking,  and  will  not  tend  to  decrease  intemperance  among 
the  lower  classes. 

E.  The  question  distinctly  refers  to  the  promotion  of  temperance, 
and  does  not  touch  upon  the  evils  attendant  upon  intemperance. 

F.  The  question  now  becomes,  Do  saloons  of  this  sort  promote 
temperance  ? 

17.  A.  Mrs.  Dingley  was  convinced  that  no  marriage  had  taken  place,  for 

1.  She  was  Stella's  inseparable  friend  and  companion  for  twenty- 
nine  years. 

2.  It  was  understood  that  Swift  and  Stella  were  to  have  no  secrets 
apart  from  her. 

3.  Whenever  they  met,  they  met  in  her  presence. 

4.  What  they  wrote  passed  through  her  hands. 

18.  1.  This  Tavern  consists  of  a  saloon  of  two  or  more  rooms.    In  the 

room  next  the  street,  beer  and  soda  water  are  on  sale,  while  in  the 
rear  rooms  all  sorts  of  strong  drinks  can  be  had  at  regular  prices. 
Food  is  served  with  the  drink  if  desired,  but  not  alone.  The 


EXERCISES  289 

management  intend  to  serve  the  best  liquors  at  the  regular  prices. 
The  profits  above  five  per  cent  are  to  be  used  in  establishing  similar 
places  in  other  parts  of  New  York.  The  bartender  receives  a 
small  percentage  on  soft  drinks  sold  and  no  percentage  on  the 
hard  drinks. 
19.  CONCLUSION 

I.  Therefore  the  saloons  conducted  upon  the  plan  of  the  "  Subway 
Tavern  "  in  New  York  do  not  promote  temperance  for  they  do  not 
differ  essentially  from  other  respectable  saloons  which  do  not  pro- 
mote temperance.  They  will  not  tend  to  decrease  drunkenness 
among  the  lower  classes  of  society.  They  will  tend  to  increase  the 
number  of  moderate  drinkers. 

2.  Poor  briefs.     Criticise  in  class,  or  make  over  outside  of  the 
class  room,-  one  of  the  poor  briefs  in  the  Appendix. 

3.  Brief-drawing.    From  the  material  in  the  Appendix  or  from 
one  of  the  speeches  in  the  Specimens  of  Argumentation  draw  a  brief 
representing  fully  the  argument  of  the  original. 

4.  Brief  criticism.     Let  the  students  criticise  in  class  each  other's 
briefs. 


CHAPTER   V 

PRESENTATION 

SECTION  1  —  PERSUASION 

The  relation  of  presentation  to  investigation.  In  study- 
ing analysis  and  evidence  one  learns  how  to  investigate  a 
question  thoroughly,  but  in  studying  brief-drawing  one 
passes  from  investigation  of  a  question  to  presentation  of 
it  for  some  group  of  readers  or  some  audience.  Nor  will 
one  stop  when  a  good  brief  has  been  constructed,  but  will 
clothe  it  in  language,  and  that  language  may,  of  course, 
either  help  or  hinder  the  effect  of  the  case  successfully 
mapped  out.  '  Therefore,  irrpresentation,  whatever  rhetoric 
has  taught  one  as  to  clear,  forcible,  and  attractive  writing 
will  be  invaluable.  Yet  a  case  has  been  planned  and  put 
into  language  for  some  desired  end, in  order  to  produce  some 
desired  action,  and  consequently  It  must  be  presented  with 
a  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  persuasion.  Indeed  the 
rhetoric  of  argument,  no  matter  how  well  understood,  — 
and  it  is  too  often  neglected,  —  cannot  offset  ignorance  of 
the  principles  which  govern  the  relations  of  an  individual 
to  his  readers  or  his  audience.  Presentation  may,  then, 
be  best  studied  under  Persuasion  and  the  Rhetoric  of 
Argument. 

The  work  of  persuasion.  Beginners  in  argumentation 
rarely  totally  neglect  persuasionTbut  they  place  their  per- 
suasion at  the  beginning,  at  the  end,  or  spottily  throughout 

290 


THE  WORK  OF  PERSUASION  291 

their  work.  But  the  definition,  "  Conviction  aims  only 
to  produce  agreement  between  writer  and  reader ;  persua- 
sion aims  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  process  of  conviction 
and  to  produce  action  as  a  result  of  conviction,"  shows 
that  the  two  work  more  often  together  than  alone.  This 
is  true  for  three  reasons.  Firs^t,  in  the  face  of  prejudices 
and  long-established  habits  the  methods  of  conviction  can 
sometimes  gain  a  hearing  only  when  persuasion  breaks 
a  way  for  them.  If  a  writer  or  speaker  knows  that  his 
subject  is  technical  or  difficult  to  grasp ;  that  it  is  for  any 
reason  —  for  instance,  because  of  the  mass  of  detail  neces- 
sary in  treating  it  —  likely  to  be  somewhat  dull;  that  he 
is  unknown  to  his  audience,  or  new  to  the  conditions 
under  which  he  speaks;  or  if  he  fears  that  his  audience 
is  already  hostile,  or  likely  to  be  made  so  by  his  words; 
it  will  be  very  helpful  in  all  these  cases,  perhaps  indis- 
pensable in  the  last,  to  win  at  the  outset  the  sympathy  of 
the  audience.  If  this  is  not  done,  a  reader  or  hearer  may 
for  any  of  the  reasons  mentioned  put  aside  the  article,  or 
leave  the  room,  before  the  case  can  be  opened. 

Secondly,  to  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  a  prin- 
ciple, theory,  or  fact  only  in  rare  cases  means  acting 
promptly  or  persistently  in  accordance  with  the  convic- 
tion. Doubtless  many  citizens  who  do  not  vote  would 
readily  admit  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  good  citizens  not 
to  waste  their  ballots,  but  it  is  quite  another  matter  for 
them,  only  because  of  this  admission,  to  overcome  their 
indifference  to  politics,  to  travel  some  distance  to  the  polls, 
or  to  take  trouble  to  decide  between  two  candidates  alike 
distasteful. 

Thirdly,  the  means  of  persuasion  are  so  numerous 
and  varied  that  they  permeate  all  parts  of  an  argument 


292  PRESENTATION 

rather  than  confine  themselves  to  any  special  places. 
Before  a  speaker1  writes  out  his  speech  or  final  plan,  he 
must  consider:  (1)  Why  should  my  audience  care  at  all 
for  my  subject  ?  (2)  How  shall  I  keep  them  interested  in  my 
case  as  I  develop  it  ?  and  (3)  What  final  impulse  in  regard 
to  my  main  idea  do  I  wish  to  leave  with  the  audience  ?  A 
little  thought  will  show  that  though,  in  answering  (1),  the 
speaker  will  probably  plan  mainly  for  material  with  which 
to  open  his  discussion,  he  may  in  his  introduction  start  a 
train  of  persuasion  which  he  will  carry  throughout ;  that 
though,  in  answering  (3),  he  will  probably  think  mainly 
of  his  peroration  and  the  last  blows  to  be  struck  persua- 
sively, he  may  be  unable  to  strike  those  blows  unless  he 
has  led  up  to  them  by  successive  steps  in  the  argument 
itself.  It  is  self-evident  that,  in  answering  (2),  the  speaker 

1  Throughout  the  preceding  chapters  it  has  been  possible  to  address 
the  writer  rather  than  the  speaker  because,  as  far  as  convincingness  is 
concerned,  the  word  "writer"  may  include  any  speaker  who  writes  out 
his  argument  before  he  meets  his  audience.  He  must  obey  the  same  laws 
of  analysis,  evidence  and  presentation.  So,  too,  must  even  he  who  only 
plans  his  work  in  his  mind,  not  writing  it  out.  The  man  called  on  to 
speak  extemporaneously  is  at  a  disadvantage,  of  course,  for  he  has  no 
time  to  plan  his  speech,  but  just  in  so  far  as  that  speech  has  method  and 
convincingness  it  conforms  to  those  principles.  The  conditions  surround- 
ing a  writer  —  his  comparative  leisure  in  developing  his  work,  his  oppor- 
tunities to  plan  carefully  and  to  readjust  —  are  those  favorable  for  study 
of  convincingness,  but  as  a  man,  in  order  to  persuade  to  the  best  advan- 
tage, must  be  face  to  face  with  his  audience,  the  conditions  of  the  speaker 
are  best  for  study  of  Persuasion.  He  who  only  prints  his  argument, 
addressing  an  unseen  audience,  cannot  apply  those  suggestions  as  to  per- 
suasion which  require  the  man  and  his  audience  to  be  face  to  face.  No 
speaker  can  give  his  final  persuasive  touches  to  his  work  till  he  is  before 
his  public  and  feels  its  mood  toward  him  and  his  subject.  If  the  condi- 
tions are  not  those  for  which  he  prepared,  he  must  change  his  plan  to 
meet  the  unexpected  circumstances.  Clinging  to  his  plan  may  mean 
losing  admirable  but  unlooked-for  opportunities. 


THE  WORK  OF  PERSUASION  293 

must  plan  so  to  relate  all  the  divisions  of  his  case  and 
even  the  separate  bits  of  evidence  to  his  audience  as  to 
minimize  disadvantageous  conditions  and  to  make  the 
most  of  any  advantages  offered.  That  is,  a  student 
may  best  plan  his  persuasion  for  a  definite  audience  by 
(1)  determining  as  fully  as  circumstances  permit  what 
will  be  the  nature  of  that  audience ;  (2)  considering  just 
what  interest  his  topic  has  for  that  audience ;  (3)  deciding 
what  is  his  own  relation  to  them,  and,  in  their  minds, 
to  his  topic ;  (4)  settling  how  each  part  of  his  brief  may 
be  given  special  significance  for  the  particular  audience. 

When  a  man  tries  to  rouse  his  fellows  to  action,  it  may 
be  to  a  single  act,  to  a  series  of  acts,  or  even  to  forming  a 
habit.  Evidently  it  should  be  easier  to  persuade  to  a  single 
act  than  to  a  series  of  acts,  —  to  get  the  drunkard  to  forego 
some  particular  glass  of  liquor  rather  than  to  renounce 
liquor.  So  well  recognized  is  this  that  those  who  have 
charge  of  the  morals  of  the  people  try  first  to  produce 
only  the  single  beneficial  action,  and  then,  by  oft-repeated 
appeals  and  arguments,  to  maintain  them  in  the  right 
path.  It  is  also  easier  to  persuade  people  to  continue  con- 
duct to  which  they  have  become  accustomed,  to  maintain 
habits  already  formed,  than  it  is  to  persuade  them  to 
entirely  new  acts,  and  either  is  easier  than  to  persuade 
them  to  give  up  old  habits.  Yet  all  three  kinds  of  work 
are  Persuasion.  Hard  and  fast  rules  for  Persuasion  it  is 
impossible  to  give,  for,  though  the  rules  for  Conviction, 
depending  as  they  do  on  logical  or  mental  processes,  will 
hold  good  whenever  rational  beings  meet,  men  differ  widely 
on  the  emotional  and  ethical  sides  of  their  natures  —  those 
with  which  Persuasion  concerns  itself.  However,  to  con- 
sider whendje  Persuasion  arises  is  certainly  helpful. 


294  PRESENTATION 

The  three  sources  of  persuasion.  Broadly  speaking,  the 
means  by  which  a  speaker  aims  to  produce  action  is  by 
winning  sympathy  for  himself  or  his  subject,  —  usually 
both.  Need  to  establish  and  maintain  such  a  sympathetic 
relationship  between  speaker  am}  audience  may  come  from 
any  one  or  all  of  three  sourcesH^-tlie  nature  of  the  subject; 
the  relation  of  the  audience  to  itf^and  the  relation  of  the 
speaker  to  subject  or  audience.  Beginners  in  argumen- 
tation are  too  ready  to  put  all  their  persuasive  trust  in 
emotional  appeals.  As  will  be  seen,  this  is  but  one  of 
many  means  to  persuasion,  and  by  no  means  the  surest 
or  safest.  Moreover,  beginners  —  and  too  many  others  — 
fail  to  distinguish  between  fair  and  unfair  creation  and 
use  of  prejudice  in  their  favor.  When  briefs  were  dis- 
cussed, students  were  warned  against  introductions  which 
state  as  true  something  really  disputable.  Sometimes  in 
developing  work  from  the  brief  into  the  speech  or  article,  a 
student  lets  this  unfairly  prejudicial  matter  slip  in  —  some- 
thing not  easy  to  forgive.  In  what  was  said  of  introdu- 
cing conviction  by  means  of  persuasion  it  was  not  at  all 
implied  that  a  student  should  make  assertions  in  regard 
to  matters  in  need  of  evidential  support,  but  that  he 
should  find  in  undebatable  matters  suggested  by  the  ques- 
tion what  will  prejudice  an  audience  in  his  favor  or  against 
his  opponent. 

Persuasion  vs.  unfair  prejudice.  The  whole  effect  of  the 
following  introduction  to  a  forensic  is  unfairly  prejudicial 
against  the  Jesuits,  for  he  who  passes  without  challenge 
the  phrases  "  by  clever  strategy,"  "  many  of  whom  returned 
to  paganism  later,"  "such  charges,  not  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained," is  well  on  his  way  to  grant  the  writer's  conclusion 
that  Clement  XIV  was  justified  in  suppressing  the  Jesuit 


PERSUASION  VS.   UNFAIR  PREJUDICE  295 

order.  Such  a  method,  if  not  detected,  really  begs  the 
question,  and  if  detected  defeats  its  own  ends,  for  it  creates 
suspicion  of  the  speaker's  fairness. 

Was  Clement  XIV  justified  in  Suppressing  the  Jesuits 
in  1773? 

In  order  that  we  may  have  clearly  in  mind  the  subject  in 
hand,  let  us  consider  in  outline  the  history  of  the  Jesuits 
from  their  organization  by  Ignatius  Loyola  in  1540  to  their 
suppression  by  Pope  Clement  XIV.  in  1773.  From  almost 
the  day  of  their  organization  they  increased  in  numbers  and 
influence  with  astonishing  rapidity.  In  1549  they  were  ten 
in  number,  while  in  1762  they  numbered  twenty-two  thousand ; 
and  their  gain  in  influence  is  even  more  remarkable.  By 
clever  strategy  they  gained  control  of  the  educational  system 
of  continental  Europe,  filled  most  of  the  offices  in  the  Inqui- 
sition, became  the  confessors  and  confidential  advisers  of 
kings,  and  were  the  most  eloquent  and  influential  pulpit 
orators.  Very  large  numbers  of  Jesuits  went  as  missionaries 
to  India,  China,  North  and  South  America,  and  the  islands 
of  the  sea,  and  their  labors  were  rewarded  with  immense 
numbers  of  converts  (many  of  whom,  however,  returned  to 
paganism  later).  In  Europe  the  Jesuits  were  most  promi- 
nently identified  with  the  political  events  of  their  times. 
Hundreds  of  charges  have  been  brought  against  them.  They 
are  accused  of  complicity  in  the  various  attempts  on  Eliza- 
beth's life,  the  Gunpowder  Plot,  the  murder  of  William  of 
Orange,  and  the  Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Day,  and  of 
causing  the  Thirty  Years'  War  and  the  French  Revolution. 
As  the  natural  result  of  such  charges,  not  satisfactorily 
explained  away,  they  came  into  extreme  unpopularity  and 
disfavor,  which  led  to  their  expulsion  from  Portugal  in  1753, 
from  France  in  1764,  and  their  suppression  by  Clement  XIV. 
in  1773. 


296  PRESENTATION 

I.  PERSUASION  ARISING  FROM  THE  NATURE  OF   THE 

SUBJECT 

Unpopular  subjects.  Subjects  may  be  unpopular  because 
there  is  strong  prejudice  against  them  or  because  they  look 
so  technical  as  to  necessitate  dullness  of  treatment.  The 
secondary  school  teacher  who  wishes  to  maintain  that  the 
Kindergarten  has  been  a  failure  or  the  scientist  with  a 
new  and  revolutionary  theory  may  face  prejudice  so  strong 
that  it  must  be  at  least  lessened  before  either  can  present 
his  case.  The  introduction  to  the  first  of  Professor  Hux- 
ley's Three  Lectures  on  Evolution l  illustrates  the  value  of 
persuasion  when  a  speaker  feels  that  he  has  a  subject  that 
may  be  dull  because  of  the  detail  and  technicality  neces- 
sary in  treating  it.  Professor  Huxley  first  pointed  out 
the  significance  for  every  man  of  the  problems  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  made  each  of  his  hearers  recognize  that  he 
had  at  times  considered  the  very  problem  to  be  discussed. 
Thereafter  the  lecture  could  hardly  be  dull,  for  each  hearer 
felt  that  the  details  gradually  developed  were  significant, 
not  in  a  purely  scientific  problem,  but  in  a  question  which, 
if  not  settled,  would  in  the  nature  of  things  recur  to 
trouble  him. 

Popular  subjects.  On  the  other  hand,  the  very  nature 
of  some  subjects  wins  sympathy  at  the  start.  This  may 
happen  for  either  of  two  reasons  or  both:  because  the 
audience,  wholly  unpreju<Jiced  toward  a  topic,  is  eager  to 
know  anything  about  it,  <#  because  the  topic  offers  a  pre- 
sumption2 in  its  favor.  The  interest  for  the  public  of  lec- 
tures on  Manchuria,  on  Arctic  exploration,  on  Shakespeare, 

1  See  Appendix. 

2  For  the  distinction  between  presumption  and  assumption  see  note, 
p.  142. 


POPULAR   SUBJECTS  297 

illustrates  the  first  condition.  When  a  speaker  treats 
such  a  subject,  everybody  is  ready  to  aid  him  with  inter- 
est and  applause.  When,  too,  a  long-accepted  theory,  such 
as  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  is  attacked,  he  who  defends  it 
has  a  presumption  in  his  favor  from  the  fact  that  the 
theory  has  so  long  prevailed.  The  audience,  sharing  from 
the  start  the  speaker's  belief,  will  be  thoroughly  in  sym- 
pathy with  his  effort  to  overthrow  those  attacking  the 
theory.  The  position  of  those  who  have,  at  different 
times,  defended  long-accepted  beliefs  against  so-called 
heretics  in  religion  or  science,  illustrates  the  persuasive 
value  of  a  subject  which  at  the  outset  offers  a  presumption 
in  its  favor.  A  speaker's  approach  to  his  case  must,  then, 
be  largely  determined  by  the  attitude  of  his  audience  to 
his  subject. 

II.   PERSUASION  ARISING  FROM  THE  RELATION  OF 
THE  SPEAKER  TO  HIS  AUDIENCE  OR  SUBJECT 

In  Persuasion  a  man  should  feel  his  subject  so  intensely 
that  the  desire  to  share  his  ideas  and  feelings  about  it  with 
his  audience  should  dominate  everything  else.  He  should 
regard  himself  as  merely  an  instrument  for  transmitting 
the  important  message,  yet  as  a  thinking  instrument  which 
takes  advantage  of  everything  in  its  favor,  skillfully  does 
away  with  what  is  not,  and  changes  its  methods  as  the 
needs  of  the  moment  require.  Such^  absorption  in  a  sub- 
ject is  possible  only  for  a  speaker  who  sincerely  believes 
what  he  is  saying. 

Sincerity.  Avoid  anything  which  suggests  self-seeking, 
self -consciousness,  or  intellectual  pose.  For  a  time  the 
demagogue  working  for  his  own  ends,  the  reformer  who 


298  PRESENTATION 

seeks  his  own  advancement,  the  preacher  who  is  really 
ambitious  and  self-seeking,  may  palm  themselves  off  on 
their  audiences  for  better  men  than  they  are,  but  sooner  or 
later  their  insincerity  becomes  known.  Never  afterwards 
will  the  old-time  power  over  audiences  be  theirs.  Noth- 
ing in  phrase,  voice,  gesture,  or  bearing  should  suggest  to 
an  audience  that  the  speaker  is  thinking  more  of  himself 
or  of  his  presentation  of  his  subject  than  of  the  message^ 
he  has  to  convey.  Rough-and-ready  men,  listening  to  a 
speech  on  some  subject  which  cries  for  redress,  will  feel 
that  he  who  evidently  pauses  to  select  and  to  polish  his 
phrases  cannot  recognize  as  he  should  the  full  significance 
of  his  subject.  What  they  want  is  a  few  sincere  words, 
rough  and  ill-selected  perhaps,  but  straight  from  the  heart 
of  a  speaker  stirred  through  and  through  with  the  impor- 
tance of  his  message.  He  who  calls  hesitatingly  on  his 
hearers  will  never  take  them  with  him.  The  man,  too,  who 
tries  to  assume  an  air  of  belief  in  his  appeal  when  he  has 
it  not  is  likely  to  be  detected,  as  an  experience  of  Lord 
Erskine's  shows.  In  his  defense  of  Lord  George  Gordon 
he  quoted  his  client's  words  to  the  king :  "  The  multitude 
pretend  to  be  perpetrating  these  acts  under  the  authority 
of  the  Protestant  petition ;  I  assure  your  majesty  they  are 
not  the  Protestant  Association,  and  I  shall  be  glad  to  be 
of  any  service  in  suppressing  them,"  and  then,  carried  out 
of  himself  by  the  strength  of  his  feelings,  he  cried :  "  I  say, 
ly  Gf-od,  that  man  is  a  ruffian  who  shall  after  this  presume 
to  build  upon  such  honest,  artless  conduct,  as  an  evidence 
of  guilt."  It  is  said  that  "  the  effect  produced  on  the  jury 
and  spectators  by  this  sudden  burst  of  feeling,  is  repre- 
sented by  eye-witnesses  to  have  been  such  as  to  baffle 
all  powers  of  description.  It  was  wholly  unpremeditated, 


SINCERITY  299 

the  instantaneous  result  of  that  sympathy  which  exists 
between  a  successful  speaker  and  his  audience.  In  utter- 
ing this  appeal  to  his  Maker,  Mr.  Erskine's  tone  was  one 
of  awe  and  deep  reverence,  without  the  slightest  approach 
toward  the  profane  use  of  the  words,  but  giving  them  all 
the  solemnity  of  a  judicial  oath.  The  magic  of  his  eye, 
gesture,  and  countenance  beaming  with  emotion,  com- 
pleted the  impression,  and  made  it  irresistible.  It  was  a 
thing  which  a  man  could  do  but  once  in  his  life.  Mr. 
Erskine  attempted  it  again  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  utterly  failed."  1  That  second  attempt  was  a  failure 
because  it  was  not  the  result  of  the  emotion  of  the  mo- 
ment, but  a  premeditated  dramatic  effect.  As  the  audience 
felt  this,  the  desired  effect  was  lost. 

A  speaker  must  also  consider  whether  his  audience 
know  anything  about  him  which  may  make  them  doubt 
his  sincerity.  Even  though  there  be  no  serious  charge 
against  a  speaker,  such  as  a  sudden  change  of  party  or 
contradictory  views  previously  expressed,  reputation  as  a 
humorist,  for  instance,  may  trouble  him  if  he  have  a  very 
serious  subject.  Unless  in  treating  his  topic  he  can  per- 
suade, at  least  partly,  through  laughter,  his  work  will  be 
very  difficult,  for  the  audience  is  accustomed  to  laugh 
with  or  at  him  and  will  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that 
he  is  really  in  earnest.  Sydney  Smith  used  to  complain 
that  his  audience  smiled  at  parts  of  his  sermons  where 
nothing  was  farther  from  his  thoughts  than  to  provide 
amusement. 

How  difficult  any  doubt  of  a  speaker's  sincerity  may  make 
his  task  is  illustrated  by  Cardinal  Newman's  struggle  in 

1  Select  British  Eloquence.  C.  A.  Goodrich,  p.  652,  note  26.  Harper 
&  Bros.  1852. 


300  PRESENTATION 

the  preface  to  the  first  edition  of  his  Apologia  pro  Vita  Sua 
to  overcome  a  strong  prejudice  which  he  felt  his  adver- 
sary, Charles  Kingsley,  had  developed  against  him  in  the 
mind  of  the  public. 

..."  What  proof  have  I,  then,  that  by  '  mean  it  ?  I  never 
said  it ! '  Dr.  Newman  does  not  signify,  '  I  did  not  say  it, 
but  I  did  mean  it'  ?" 

Now  these  insinuations  and  questions  shall  be  answered  in 
their  proper  places  ;  here  I  will  but  say  that  I  scorn  and 
detest  lying,  and  quibbling,  and  double-tongued  practice,  and 
slyness,  and  cunning,  and  smoothness,  and  cant,  and  pretence, 
quite  as  much  as  any  Protestants  hate  them ;  and  I  pray  to 
be  kept  from  the  snare  of  them.  But  all  this  is  just  now  by 
the  bye  ;  my  present  subject  is  my  Accuser  ;  what  I  insist 
upon  here  is  this  unmanly  attempt  of  his,  in  his  concluding 
pages,  to  cut  the  ground  from  under  my  feet ;  —  to  poison  by 
anticipation  the  public  mind  against  me,  John  Henry  New- 
man, and  to  infuse  into  the  imaginations  of  my  readers,  sus- 
picion and  mistrust  of  everything  that  I  may  say  in  reply  to 
him.  This  I  call  poisoning  the  wells. 

"  I  am  henceforth  in  doubt  and  fear,"  he  says,  "  as  much  as 
any  honest  man  can  be,  concerning  every  word  Dr.  Newman  may 
write.  How  can  I  tell  that  I  shall  not  be  the  dupe  of  some  cun- 
ning equivocation?".  .  . 

Well,  I  can  only  say,  that,  if  his  taunt  is  to  take  effect,  I 
am  but  wasting  my  time  in  saying  a  word  in  answer  to  his 
calumnies  ;  and  this  is  precisely  what  he  knows  and  intends 
to  be  its  fruit.  I  can  hardly  get  myself  to  protest  against  a 
method  of  controversy  so  base  and  cruel,  lest  in  doing  so,  I 
should  be  violating  my  self-respect  and  self-possession ;  but 
most  base  and  most  cruel  it  is.  We  all  know  how  our  imagi- 
nation runs  away  with  us,  how  suddenly  and  at  what  a  pace  ; 
—  the  saying,  "  Caesar's  wife  should  not  be  suspected,"  is  an 
instance  of  what  I  mean.  The  habitual  prejudice,  the  humour 
of  the  moment,  is  the  turning  point  which  leads  us  to  read 


SINCERITY  301 

a  defence  in  a  good  sense  or  a  bad.  We  interpret  it  by  our 
antecedent  impressions.  The  very  same  sentiments,  accord- 
ing as  our  jealousy  is  or  is  not  awake,  or  our  aversion  stimu- 
lated, are  tokens  of  truth  or  of  dissimulation  and  pretence. 
There  is  a  story  of  a  sane  person  being  by  mistake  shut  up 
in  the  warc^s  of  a  Lunatic  Asylum,  and  that,  when  he  pleaded 
his  cause  to  some  strangers  visiting  the  establishment,  the 
only  remark  he  elicited  in  answer  was,  "How  naturally  he 
talks  !  you  would  think  he  was  in  his  senses."  Controversies 
should  be  decided  by  the  reason ;  is  it  legitimate  warfare  to 
appeal  to  the  misgivings  of  the  public  mind  and  to  its  dislik- 
ings  ?  Anyhow,  if  my  accuser  is  able  thus  to  practice  upon 
my  readers,  the  more  I  succeed,  the  less  will  be  my  success. 
If  I  am  natural,  he  will  tell  them  "  Ars  est  celare  artem ;"  if 
I  am  convincing,  he  will  suggest  that  I  am  an  able  logician ; 
if  I  show  warmth,  I  am  acting  the  indignant  innocent ;  if  I 
am  calm,  I  am  thereby  detected  as  a  smooth  hypocrite ;  if  I 
clear  up  difficulties,  I  am  too  plausible  and  perfect  to  be  true. 
The  more  triumphant  are  my  statements,  the  more  certain 
will  be  my  defeat. 

So  will  it  be  if  my  Accuser  succeeds  in  his  manoeuvre  ; 
but  I  do  not  for  an  instant  believe  that  he  will.  Whatever 
judgment  my  readers  may  eventually  form  of  me  from  these 
pages,  I  am  confident  that  they  will  believe  me  in  what  I 
shall  say  in  the  course  of  them. 

I  have  no  misgiving  at  all,  that  they  will- be  ungenerous  or 
harsh  toward  a  man  who  has  been  so  long  before  the  eyes  of 
the  world;  who  has  so  many  to  speak  of  him  from  personal 
knowledge ;  whose  natural  impulse  it  has  ever  been  to  speak 
out;  who  has  ever  spoken  too  much  rather  than  too  little; 
who  would  have  saved  himself  many  a  scrape,  if  he  had  been 
wise  enough  to  hold  his  tongue ;  who  has  ever  been  fair  to 
the  doctrines  and  arguments  of  his  opponents;  who  has  never 
slurred  over  facts  and  reasonings  which  told  against  himself ; 
who  has  never  given  his  name  or  authority  to  proofs  which 
he  thought  unsound,  or  to  testimony  which  he  did  not  think 


302  PRESENTATION 

at  least  plausible ;  who  has  never  shrunk  from  confessing  a 
fault  when  he  felt  that  he  had  committed  one ;  who  has  ever 
consulted  for  others  more  than  for  himself ;  who  has  given 
up  much  that  he  loved  and  prized  and  could  have  retained, 
but  that  he  loved  honesty  better  than  name,  and  Truth  better 
than  dear  friends.1 

One  has  only  to  examine  the  great  speeches  from 
Demosthenes  to  Webster  to  see  how  earnestly  the  orators 
have  in  all  parts  of  their  work  impressed  their  sincerity  on 
their  audiences :  one  has  but  to  study  the  wrecked  careers 
among  orators  to  realize  that  sincerity  is  the  chief  essential 
in  persuasion.  Without  it  all  else,  in  the  long  run,  goes 
for  naught.  Much  is  said  nowadays  of  personal  magnetism, 
in  speakers  and  actors.  There  is  undoubtedly  in  certain 
persons  something  which,  the  moment  they  appear  on  the 
stage  or  platform,  establishes  a  bond  of  sympathy  between 
them  and  their  audience,  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  deter- 
mine how  much  of  this  is  inborn  and  how  much  comes 
from  the  self-reliance  of  the  speaker  and  the  confidence  of 
his  audience  in  him  based  on  his  reputation  for  knowledge, 
sincerity,  and  skill. 

T^acL.  Tact  is  another  great  requisite  in  a  speaker  —  the 
ability  to  do  or  say  the  right  thing  at  the  right  moment, 
or  better,  to  avoid  doing  or  saying  the  wrong  thing.  It 
implies^'self-control^  Absence  of  self-assertion,'jconstant  study 
of  men  and  manners  in  order  to  understand  how  a  subject 
may  present  itself  to  a  mind  wholly  different  from  one's 
own, "and  a  readiness  to  do,  or  say  what  shall  put  other 
men  at  ease.  Tact  marks  the  First  Philippic  of  Demos- 
thenes (see  p.  335).  Very  tactless  is  this  opening  of  an 

1  Apologia  pro  Vita  Sua.  J.  H.  Newman,  pp.  xiii-xv.  Longman^ 
Green  &  Co.  1893. 


TACT  — SKILL  303 

argument  before  the  American  Protective  League  on 
"  Should  the  Hundred  Dollar  Clause  of  the  Dingley  Bill 
be  Abolished?" 

Unless  I  were  well  armed,  I  should  not  dare  to  step  up  to 
your  president  and  say  :  "  Sir,  your  favorite  son's  a  rogue  and 
a  scamp."  Unless  I  were  well  armed  with  arguments  which 
must  convince,  I  should  not  tonight  stand  before  you  and  say: 
"  Gentlemen,  your  pet  measure  is  foolish  and  unpatriotic."  * 

Skill.  The  third  great  requisite  in  a  speaker,  skill,  is 
broadly  inclusive :  it  signifies  knowledge  of  all  the  means 
and  methods  of  effective  conviction  and  persuasion,  and  a 
use  of  rules  so  intelligent  as  to  distinguish  in  persuasion 
between  the  ninety-nine  cases  in  which  the  rule  applies 
and  the  hundredth  when  it  may  best  be  broken.  A  skilled 
speaker  always  produces  the  feeling  that  he  is  master  of 
his  subject  and  of  the  situation.  To  be  master  of  a  sub- 
ject mean^good  structure;5  a  clear,  forcible  development 
of  the  case,  free  from  fallacies  ;Y^doing  full  justice  to  the 
case  of  an  opponent,  yet  overcoming  him($and  warding  off 
disadvantageous  as  well  as  using  advantageous  conditions 
arising  from  one  or  more  of  the  three  sources  of  persuasion. 

An  unknown  speaker.  The  extreme  importance  to  an 
unknown  speaker  of  winning  sympathy  at  the  outset  of  his 
work  is  recognized  even  in  the  well-known  lines :  — 

You'd  scarce  expect  one  of  my  age 
To  speak  in  public  on  the  stage. 

The  modesty  and  the  close  friendship  of  the  opening  to  a 
case  in  the  Athenian  law  court  would  make  it  hard  for  any 
fair-minded  audience  to  refuse  its  sympathy  to  the  speaker. 

1  For  another  illustration  of  tact  study  Beecher's  Speech  at  Liverpool, 
Specimens  of  Argumentation,  pp.  154-178;  for  tactlessness  see  the  speech 
of  Brutus,  Julius  Ccesar,  III,  2. 


304  PRESENTATION 

I  think,  judges,  I  must  first  tell  you  of  my  friendship 
with  Pherenicus,  lest  some  of  you  should  wonder  why  I,  who 
have  never  been  any  man's  advocate  before,  am  his  now. 
His  father,  Cephisodotus,  was  my  friend,  judges ;  and  when 
we  were  exiles  at  Thebes  I  stayed  with  him  —  I,  and  any 
other  Athenian  who  would ;  and  many  were  the  good  offices, 
public  and  private,  that  we  received  from  him  before  we 
came  home.  Well,  when  he  and  his  son  had  the  like  for- 
tune, and  came  to  Athens  banished  men,  I  thought  that  I 
owed  them  the  fullest  recompense,  and  made  them  so  thor- 
oughly at  home  in  my  house  that  no  one  coming  in  could 
have  told,  unless  he  knew  before,  whether  it  belonged  to 
them  or  to  me.  Pherenicus  knows,  as  well  as  other  people, 
judges,  that  there  are  plenty  of  better  speakers  than  I,  and 
better  experts  in  affairs  of  this  kind;  but  still  he  thinks  that 
my  close  friendship  is  the  best  thing  he  can  trust  to.  So, 
when  he  appeals  to  me  and  asks  me  to  give  him  my  honest 
help,  I  think  it  would  be  a  shame  to  let  him  be  deprived,  if 
I  can  help  it,  of  what  Androcleides  gave  him.1 

This  opening  of  a  speech  of  Abraham  Lincoln  at  Colum- 
bus, Ohio,  shows  a  similar  effort  to  win  sympathy  because 
the  speaker  was  not  well  known  to  his  audience :  — 

FELLOW-CITIZENS  OF  THE  STATE  OF  OHIO:  I  cannot  fail 
to  remember  that  I  appear  for  the  first  time  before  an  audi- 
ence in  this  now  great  State,  —  an  audience  that  is  accus- 
tomed to  hear  such  speakers  as  Corwin,  and  Chase,  and  Wade, 
and  many  other  renowned  men ;  and  remembering  this,  I  feel 
that  it  will  be  well  for  you,  as  for  me,  that  you  should  not 
raise  your  expectations  to  that  standard  to  which  you  would 
have  been  justified  in  raising  them  had  one  of  these  distin- 
guished men  appeared  before  you.  You  would  perhaps  be 
only  preparing  a  disappointment  for  yourselves,  and,  as  a 

1  Attic  Orators.  R.  C.  Jebb.  Vol.  II,  pp.  279-280.  Macmillan  &  Co. 
London. 


THE  SPEAKER'S  KNOWLEDGE  OF  HIS  SUBJECT     305 

jBhsequejice  of  your  disappointment,  mortification  for  me. 
I  hope,  therefore,  that  you  will  commence  with  very  moderate 
I  expectations ;  and  perhaps,  if  you  will  give  me  your  attention, 
j  I  shall  be  able  to  interest  you  in  a  moderate  degree. 1 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  both  these  illustrations  the 
persuasive  effect  comes  in  part  or  wholly  from  the  sincerity 
of  the  speaker. 

The  speaker's  knowledge  of  his  subject.  At  times  a 
i  speaker  finds  it  advantageous  to  impress  upon  his  audience 
his  special  fitness  to  treat  his  subject.  Often  as  a  part  of 
I  this  amplifying  of  his  own  fitness,  he  shows  directly  or 
indirectly  the  unfitness  of  his  opponent. 

Dryden  in  the  following  extract  from  the  opening  of 
his  Defence  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  by  ironic  praise 
and  mock  self -depreciation,  makes  a  reader  feel  the 
probable  incompetence  of  his  opponent  and  his  own 
competence. 

But  while  I  was  thus  employed  about  this  impression, 
there  came  to  my  hands  a  new  printed  play,  called  The  Great 
Favourite,  or  The  Duke  of  Lerma;  the  author  of  which,  a 
noble  and  most  ingenious  person,  has  done  me  the  favour  to 
make  some  observations  and  animadversions  upon  my  Dra- 
matique  Essay.  I  must  confess  he  might  have  better  consulted 
his  reputation,  than  by  matching  himself  with  so  weak  an 
adversary.  But  if  his  honour  be  diminished  in  the  choice  of 
his  antagonist,  it  is  sufficiently  recompensed  in  the  election 
of  his  cause :  which  being  the  weaker,  in  all  appearance, 
as  combating  the  received  opinions  of  the  best  ancient  and 
modern  authors,  will  add  to  his  glory,  if  he  overcome,  and  to 
the  opinion  of  his  generosity,  if  he  be  vanquished :  since  he 
ingages  at  so  great  odds,  and,  so  like  a  cavalier,  undertakes 

1  Complete  Works  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  Vol.  I,  p.  538.  Nicolay  and 
Hay.  Century  Company. 


306  PRESENTATION 

the  protection  of  the  weaker  party.  I  have  only  te  fearWr 
my  own  behalf,  that  so  good  a  cause  as  mine  may  not  suffer 
by  my  ill  management,  or  weak  defence ;  yet  I  cannot  in 
honour  but  take  the  glove,  when  7t  is  offered  me :  though  I 
am  only  a  champion  by  succession ;  and  no  more  able  to 
defend  the  right  of  Aristotle  and  Horace,  than  an  infant 
Dimock  to  maintain  the  title  of  a  King. 

For  my  own  concernement  in  the  controversie,  it  is  so 
small,  that  I  can  easily  be  contented  to  be  driven  from  a  few 
notions  of  Dramatique  Poesie;   especially  by  one,  who  has  I 
the  reputation  of   understanding  all  things:    and  I    might 
justly  make  that  excuse  for  my  yielding  to  him,  which  the 
Philosopher  made  to  the  Emperor,  —  why  should  I  offer  to 
contend  with  him,  who  is  master  of  more  than  twenty  legions  of  \ 
arts  and  sciences  ?    But  I  am  forced  to  fight,  and  therefore  it  1 
will  be  no  shame  to  be  overcome.1 

The  following  shows  a  speaker  unknown  to  most  of  his 
audience  skillfully  making  a  confession  of  seeming  unfitness 
create  sympathy  for  his  cause. 

Mr.   Toastmaster,   Graduates    of   Phillips    Exeter  Academy, 

Friends :  — 

As  I  look  up  and  down  the  rows  of  faces  which  line  the   ] 
table  to  my  right,  and  to  my  left,  and  note  the  half  incredu-  j 
lous  expression  which  my  subject  has  aroused  upon  some    . 
faces  with  which  I  am  very  familiar,  I  am  irresistibly  re- 
minded of  an  experience  similar  to  this  which  I  once  had    ' 
in  Exeter.     There,  as  now,  youth  and  uncalculating  earnest-  1 
ness  were  my  sole  weapons.    My  only  listener  was  that  hon- 
ored teacher  to  whose  memory  we  have  heard  so  many  tributes   1 
tonight,  —  Bradbury  Longfellow  Cilley.     I  was   a  middler ; 
Professor  Cilley  was  my  pilot  through  the   mazes  of  Asia 

1  A  Defence  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy.  Dry  den.  pp.  101-102. 
Clarendon  Press.  1889. 


THE  SPEAKER'S  KNOWLEDGE  OF   HIS  SUBJECT     307 

Minor  with.  Xenophon.  Having  been  induced,  one  day,  by 
athletic  friends  whose  time  was  limited  to  the  running 
pack,  to  help  them  out  in  their  campaign  of  subscriptions 
|to  the  track  team,  I  went  to  Mr.  Cilley  after  the  class  and 
diffidently  asked  him  if  he  would  not  contribute.  Mr.  Cilley 
seemed  a  bit  puzzled,  at  first.  He  said, 

"  Why,  you  are  not  an  athlete,  are  you  ? " 

"  No,"  I  replied. 

"  Are  you  interested  in  athletics  ?  " 

"Not  personally,"  I  stuttered,  "but  I  think  it's  a  good 
thing  for  us  all." 

I  soon  felt  that  I  was  talking  better  than  I  had  hoped,  and 
that  my  plan  really  promised  excellent  results,  so  I  argued 
long  upon  the  merits  of  my  appeal.  Mr.  Cilley,  after  vigor- 
ously clearing  his  throat,  finally  pulled  a  dollar  from  his 
pocket  and  put  it  in  my  hand,  saying, 

"Well,  B 1,  if  you  are  the  best  man  the  track  team 

can  get  to  solicit  subscriptions,  I  think  they  must  be  in  need 
of  help.  I  '11  help  them." 

Although  Mr.  Cilley  tempered  the  sweet  of  a  contribution 
with  the  bitter  of  a  justifiable  judgment,  subscriptions  came 
easily  afterwards,  and  the  track  team  met  Andover  that 
spring  and  defeated  it  64-31.  The  memory  of  my  failure  to 
make  a  satisfactory  plea  before  Mr.  Cilley  has  often  recurred 
to  me  in  the  past  in  connection  with  my  final  good  luck 
in  securing  funds.  So,  when  your  toastmaster  asked  me  to 
speak  before  you  this  evening  on  one  of  the  great  needs  of 
the  Academy,  to  revive  and  increase  the  athletic  interests  of 
its  students,  I  reflected  that  although  I  was  not  an  athlete  at 
Exeter,  and  have  not  been  since  I  left  there,  perhaps  my 
very  weakness  in  acting  as  the  advocate  of  such  needs  would 
induce  you  to  regard  the  subject  in  a  favorable  light  and  say 
as  did  Old  "Brad":  — 

"  Well,  if  you  are  the  best  man  the  athletes  can  get  to 
solicit  our  interest,  they  must  be  in  need  of  help,  and  I  '11 
help  them." 


308  PRESENTATION 

Audience  hostile  to  speaker.  An  audience  may  be  hostile 
to  a  speaker 'either  because  of  his  record  apart  from  his 
subject  of  the  moment  or  because  he  is  known  to  be  advo- 
cating a  detested  cause.  In  either  case  only  persuasion, 
and  not  always  even  that,  can  win  the  speaker  a  chance" 
to  present  his  views.  Without  persuasion  Henry  Ward 
Beecher  could  never  have  given  the  argumentative  part  of 
his  Speech  at  Liverpool.1  He  got  a  hearing  from  a  very 

1 "  When  Mr.  Beecher  went  to  England  in  1863,  English  friends  of  the 
North  urged  him  to  speak  publicly  for  Northern  interests.  They  felt  that 
as  champions  of  the  North  they  had  been  treated  with  contempt  and  vili- 
fication, and  that  unless  he,  as  a  prominent  Abolitionist,  should  recognize 
their  efforts,  they  were  lost.  .  .  .  Liverpool  was  the  headquarters  of  the 
Southern  sympathizers,  and  a  great  many  Southern  men  were  in  the  city. 
The  feeling  was  very  strong  that  if  Mr.  Beecher  should  succeed  there, 
he  would  win  the  day ;  and  a  determined  and  desperate  effort  was  to  be 
made  to  prevent  the  delivery  of  the  speech.  The  streets  were  placarded 
with  abusive  and  scurrilous  posters,  urging  Englishmen  to  *  see  that  he 
gets  the  welcome  he  deserves.'  On  the  morning  of  the  16th  the  lead- 
ing papers  came  out  with  violent  and  false  editorials  against  Mr.  Beecher. 
It  was  openly  declared  that  if  he  should  dare  to  address  the  meeting,  he 
would  never  leave  the  hall  alive.  It  was  well  known  that  the  mob  was 
armed  :  not  so  well  known  that  a  small  armed  band  of  young  men  were 
in  a  commanding  position  at  the  right  of  the  stage,  determined,  if  any 
outbreak  occurred,  to  protect  Mr.  Beecher. 

"  The  great  hall  was  packed  to  the  crushing  point.  For  some  moments 
before  the  time  fixed  for  the  commencement  of  the  proceedings  there  were 
cat-calls,  groans,  cheers,  and  hisses,  and  it  was  evident  that  a  strong  force 
of  the  pro-Southern  (or  at  least  of  the  anti-Beecher)  party  had  congregated 
in  front  of  the  gallery  and  at  the  lower  end  of  the  body  of  the  hall.  .  .  .] 
Mr.  Beecher  was  evidently  prepared  for  some  opposition  ;  but  he  could 
hardly  have  expected  that  his  appearance  at  the  front  of  the  platform 
would  rouse  one  portion  of  the  audience  to  a  high  state  of  enthusiasm, 
and  cause  the  other  portion  to  approach  almost  a  state  of  frenzy.  For 
some  time  it  was  doubtful  whether  he  would  be  allowed  to  speak ;  but 
those  who  sat  near  him  and  observed  his  firmly  compressed  lips  and 
imperturbable  demeanor,  saw  at  once  that  it  would  require  something 
more  than  noise  and  spasmodic  hisses  to  cause  Mr.  Beecher  to  lose  heart. 
He  stood  calmly  at  the  edge  of  the  platform,  waiting  for  the  noise  to 
cease.  At  last  there  was  a  lull,  and  the  chairman  made  an  appeal  to  the 


AUDIENCE  HOSTILE   TO   SPEAKER  309 

turbulent  and  hostile  audience  by  letting  his  opening  words 
show  that  he  was  undaunted,  sincere,  determined,  —  three 
qualities  sure  to  win  sympathy  from  a  British  audience. 
He  managed  to  make  the  conduct  of  those  who  were  dis- 
turbing him,  and  of  those  who  should  later  try  to  interrupt, 
prejudicial  to  their  cause.  He  appealed  to  his  hearers  for 
"fair  play,"  —  something  every  Britisher  is  supposed  to 
,grant  any  one.  Lastly,  the  imperturbability  of  his  manner 
|won  respect  and  sympathy,  and  the  easy  good  nature  of 
his  "  I  and  my  friends  the  Secessionists  will  make  all  the 
inoise"  won  him  sympathetic  laughter.  Here  is  the  persua- 
sion which  precedes  his  real  case. 

For  more  than  twenty-five  years  I  have  been  made  perfectly 
[familiar  with  popular  assemblies  in  all  parts  of  my  country 
(except  the  extreme  South.  There  has  not  for  the  whole  of 
jthat  time  been  a  single  day  of  my  life  when  it  would  have 
been  safe  for  me  to  go  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  in 
jmy  own  country,  and  all  for  one  reason :  my  solemn,  earnest, 
persistent  testimony  against  that  which  I  consider  to  be  the 
most  atrocious  thing  under  the  suu  —  the  system  of  American 
islavery  in  a  great  free  republic.  [Cheers.]  I  have  passed 
[through  that  early  period  when  right  of  free  speech  was  denied 
jto  me.  Again  and  again  I  have  attempted  to  address  audi- 
Jences  that,  for  no  other  crime  than  that  of  free  speech,  visited 
|me  with  all  manner  of  contumelious  epithets ;  and  now  since 
Jl  have  been  in  England,  although  I  have  met  with  greater 

(meeting  for  fair  play.  His  assurance  that  Mr.  Beecher,  after  his  speech, 
Uwould  answer  any  questions  which  any  one  might  care  to  ask  was  not 
Ivery  favorably  received,  and  a  series  of  disturbances  followed.  When 
Ithe  scuffling  had  partly  subsided,  the  chairman  expressed  his  determina- 
htion  to  preserve  order  by  calling  in,  if  necessary,  the  aid  of  the  police. 
[This  announcement  produced  something  like  order,  and  Mr.  Beecher  took 
Pup  the  advantage  and  began  his  address."  Condensed  from  Biography 
\ofH.  W.  Beecher,  by  W.  C.  Beecher  and  Rev.  S.  Scoville.  pp.  422-425. 


310  PRESENTATION 

kindness  and  courtesy  on  the  part  of  most  than  I  deserved, 
yet,  on  the  other  hand,  I  perceive  that  the  Southern  influence 
prevails  to  some  extent  in  England.  [Applause  and  uproar.] 
It  is  my  old  acquaintance ;  I  understand  it  perfectly  —  [laugh- 
ter] —  and  I  have  always  held  it  to  be  an  unfailing  truth  that 
where  a  man  had  a  cause  that  would  bear  examination  he 
was  perfectly  willing  to  have  it  spoken  about.  [Applause.] 
And  when  in  Manchester  I  saw  those  huge  placards  :  "  Who 
is  Henry  Ward  Beecher  ?  "  —  [laughter,  cries  of"  Quite  right," 
and  applause]  —  and  when  in  Liverpool  I  was  told  that  there 
were  those  blood-red  placards,  purporting  to  say  what  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  had  said,  and  calling  upon  Englishmen  to  sup- 
press free  speech  —  I  tell  you  what  I  thought.  I  thought 
simply  this  :  "  I  am  glad  of  it."  [Laughter.]  Why  ?  Because 
if  they  had  felt  perfectly  secure,  that  you  are  the  minions  of 
the  South  and  the  slaves  of  slavery,  they  would  have  been 
perfectly  still.  [Applause  and  uproar.]  And,  therefore,  when 
I  saw  so  much  nervous  apprehension  that,  if  I  were  permitted 
to  speak  —  [hisses  and  applause]  —  when  I  found  they  were 
afraid  to  have  me  speak  —  [hisses,  laughter,  and  "  No,  no  !  "] 
—  when  I  found  that  they  considered  my  speaking  damaging 
to  their  cause  —  [applause]  — when  I  found  that  they  appealed 
from  facts  and  reasonings  to  mob  law  —  [applause  and  uproar] 
—  I  said,  no  man  need  tell  me  what  the  heart  and  secret 
counsel  of  these  men  are.  They  tremble  and  are  afraid. 
[Applause,  laughter,  hisses,  "No,  no!"  and  a  voice:  "New 
York  mob."]  Now,  personally,  it  is  a  matter  of  very  little 
consequence  to  me  whether  I  speak  here  to-night  or  not. 
[Laughter  and  cheers.]  But,  one  thing  is  very  certain,  if  you 
do  permit  me  to  speak  here  to-night  you  will  hear  very  plain 
talking.  [Applause  and  hisses.]  You  will  not  find  a  man  — 
[interruption]  — you  will  not  find  me  to  be  a  man  that  dared 
to  speak  about  Great  Britain  three  thousand  miles  off,  and 
then  is  afraid  to  speak  to  Great  Britain  when  he  stands  on 
her  shores.  [Immense  applause  and  hisses.]  And  if  I  do 
not  mistake  the  tone  and  temper  of  Englishmen,  they  had 


AUDIENCE  WHICH  MAY  BECOME  HOSTILE      311 

rather  have  a  man  who  opposes  them  in  a  manly  way  —  [ap- 
plause from  all  parts  of  the  hall]  —  than  a  sneak  that  agrees 
with  them  in  an  unmanly  way.  [Applause  and  "  Bravo  ! "] 
Now,  if  I  can  carry  you  with  me  by  sound  convictions,  1 
shall  be  immensely  glad  —  [applause]  ;  but  if  I  cannot  carry 
you  with  me  by  facts  and  sound  arguments,  I  do  not  wish 
you  to  go  with  me  at  all ;  and  all  that  I  ask  is  simply  FAIR 
PLAY.  [Applause,  and  a  voice  :  "  You  shall  have  it,  too."] 

Those  of  you  who  are  kind  enough  to  wish  to  favor  my  speak- 
ing, —  and  you  will  observe  that  my  voice  is  slightly  husky, 
from  having  spoken  almost  every  night  in  succession  for  some 
time  past,  —  those  who  wish  to  hear  me  will  do  me  the  kind- 
ness simply  to  sit  still,  and  to  keep  still  j  and  I  and  my  friends 
the  Secessionists  will  make  all  the  noise.  [Laughter.] l 

Audience  which  may  become  hostile.  The  value  of  win- 
ding sympathy  at  the  outset  when  a  speaker  knows  that  an 
audience,  friendly  at  first,  is  sure  to  be  angered  by  words 
he  must  say  later  is  shown  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  the 
First  Letter  of  Junius.  He  is  to  make  statements  about 
the  members  of  the  Ministry  so  audacious  that  most  of  his 
readers,  even  though  they  agree  that  wrong  exists,  will  draw 
back  shocked.  At  the_ outset,  therefore,  he  finds  common 
ground  upon  which  he  and  his  readers  can  agree,  in  order 
that  when  his  readers  later  are  disposed  to  withdraw  their 
sympathy,  they  may  see  that  his  censure  is  but  the  logical 
outcome  of  the  statements  to  which  they  agreed  at  the 
beginning  of  the  letter.  Seeing  this,  they  will  be  less 
likely  to  revolt.  Junius,  as  the  following  will  show,  first 
puts  before  his  readers^  general  proposition  which  they 
wjll  readily  accept ;  then^-  with  a  sudden  turn,  makes  a 
special  application  of  it,  and  throughout  his  letter  simply 
adds  detail  to  detail  of  his  special  case. 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  156-158. 


312  PRESENTATION 

SIR:  The  submission  of  a  free  people  to  the  executive 
authority  of  government  is  no  more  than  a  compliance  with 
laws  which  they  themselves  have  enacted.  While  the  national 
honor  is  firmly  maintained  abroad,  and  while  justice  is  impar- 
tially administered  at  home,  the  obedience  of  the  subject  will 
be  voluntary,  cheerful,  and  I  might  say,  almost  unlimited.  A 
generous  nation  is  grateful  even  for  the  preservation  of  its 
rights,  and  willingly  extends  the  respect  due  to  the  office  of 
a  good  prince  into  an  affection  for  his  person.  Loyalty,  in 
the  heart  and  understanding  of  an  Englishman,  is  a  rational 
attachment  to  the  guardian  of  the  laws.  Prejudices  and  pas- 
sion have  sometimes  carried  it  to  a  criminal  length;  and 
whatever  foreigners  may  imagine,  we  know  that  Englishmen 
have  erred  as  much  in  a  mistaken  zeal  for  particular  persons 
and  families,  as  they  ever  did  in  defense  of  what  they  thought 
most  dear  and  interesting  to  themselves. 

It  naturally  fills  us  with  resentment  to  see  such  a  temper 
insulted  and  abused.  In  reading  the  history  of  a  free  people 
whose  rights  have  been  invaded,  we  are  interested  in  their 
cause.  Our  own  feelings  tell  us  how  long  they  ought  to  have 
submitted,  and  at  what  moment  it  would  have  been  treachery 
to  themselves  not  to  have  resisted.  How  much  warmer  will 
be  our  resentment  if  experience  should  bring  the  fatal  example 
home  to  ourselves ! 

The  situation  in  this  country  is  alarming  enough  to  rouse 
the  attention  of  every  man  who  pretends  to  a  concern  for  the 
public  welfare.1 

Should  the  conclusion  be  stated  in  the  introduction? 
Whether  one's  subject  is  unpopular,  whether  what  one 
must  say  may  rouse  hostility,  are  questions  which  must 
be  answered  before  an  important  matter,  namely,  "  Should 
one's  conclusion  be  stated  in  the  introduction?"  can  be 
settled.  Readers  of  Plato's  dialogues  will  remember  that 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,    pp.  42-44. 


SHOULD  THE  CONCLUSION  BE  STATED?         313 

Socrates  very  often  held  back  his  real  thesis  until  he  had 
forced  an  antagonist  step  by  step  to  the  desired  conclusion. 
When  speaker  or  cause  is  unpopular  or  details  of  the  case 
or  its  treatment  may  rouse  hostility  it  is  wiser  in  the  intro- 
cTuction  to  state  one's  thesis  as  a  question,  phrasing  it 
exactly  only  when  the  audience  has  accepted  the  details 
which  make  the  conclusion  inevitable. 

A  speech  at  a  public  dinner  some  time  since  illustrated 
how  little  a  worthy  cause  and  good  intentions  offset  tactless 
premature  announcement  of  one's  purpose.  The  speaker, 
knowing  that  many  rich  and  liberal  men  were  present  at 
this  purely  social  gathering,  wished  to  make  sure  of  a  large 
contribution  for  a  local  charity,  —  though  all  the  preced- 
ing speeches  had  aimed  only  to  entertain.  Either  from 
thoughtlessness  or  because  he  believed  in  frankness  above 
all  else,  he  promptly  announced  his  purpose,  and  he  was 
wounded  that  after  a  good  speech  he  met  with  no  response 
from  his  audience.  It  felt  tricked  in  being  obliged  to 
listen  to  such  an  appeal  at  such  a  meeting.  His  frank 
statement  of  his  design,  therefore,  so  chilled  it  that  even 
the  earnestness  of  his  appeal  could  not  win  its  sympathy. 
Had  he  spoken  at  first  lightly,  entertainingly ;  then  by  well- 
told  anecdote  slipped  into  more  serious  matters,  gradually 
arousing  sympathy  and  interest  in  his  cause,  and  finally 
appealed  as  strongly  as  he  could  in  behalf  of  the  charity 
whose  value  and  need  he  had  demonstrated,  the  response 
would  probably  have  been  far  different. 

A  third  source.  Clearly,  the  hostility  toward  Beecher 
and  Junius  arose  more  from  the  relation  of  the  audience 
to  the  subject  than  to  the  man.  This  fact  opens  up  the 
third  source  of  persuasion,  the  richest,  the  most  compli- 
cated, and  consequently  the  hardest  to  master. 


314  PRESENTATION 


in.    PERSUASION  ARISING  FROM  THE  RELATION  OF 
THE  AUDIENCE  TO  THE  SUBJECT-MATTER 

^.skillful  speaker  is  always  on  the  alert  for  any  oppor- 
tunity to  give  the  particular  idea  he  may  be  developing, 
whether  in  the  introduction,  the  argument  proper,  or  the 
peroration,  a  bearing  personal  to  his  audience,  so  that  their 
individual  interests,  their  emotions,  as  well  as  their  reas- 
oning powers,  shall  be  stirred.  A  beginner  will  probably 
do  best  to  make  a  brief  or  an  outline  of  his  intended  speech 
and  go  over  it  considering  how  the  argument  suggested 
by  each  heading  and  subheading  is  likely  to  affect  the 
interests,  prejudices,  and  emotions  of  his  probable  audience, 
and  how  the  evidence  he  means  to  use  in  treating  each 
division  may  appeal  to  these  same  interests,  prejudices, 
and  emotions.  Any  such  examination  of  an  outline  with 
relation  to  some  audience  well  known  to  the  speaker  will 
show  that  there  are  three  methods  of  appeal  open,  usually 
employed  in  common:  {1^ selection  of  interests,  prejudices, 
habitudes  of  mind  to  which  the  material  may  be  made  to 
appeal  and  avoidance  of  anything  in  the  case  which  may 
disadvantageously  stir  them;  (Sj^pure  excitation  of  the 
emotions  in  connection  with  parts  of  the  material,  or  in 
opening  or  closing;  and  (3)  a  rhetorical  presentation  of 
the  selected  material  or  of  the  emotional  appeals  which 
gives  them  special  effectiveness.  In  ideal  argumenta- 
tion, evidently,  each  part  should  not  count  simply  for  con- 
viction or  persuasion,  but  for  both.  Lord  Erskine  was 
a  master  o£  this  double  use  of  material.  In  his  Defense 
of  Lord  G-eorge  Gordon  he  makes  not  one  mere  appeal 
to  the  emotions,  but  when  he  pleads  here  for  sympathy 
as  inexperienced  and  there  compliments  Lord  Mansfield 


GRADES  IN  MOTIVES  315 

gracefully,  his  words  subserve  also  a  second  purpose :  the 
plea  goes  far  to  establish  a  presumption  of  his  client's 
innocence  and  the  compliment  becomes  a  proof  of  that 
innocence. 

Variety  of  motives.  The  moment  a  speaker  considers 
how  he  may  mold  his  material  to  the  interests,  the  preju- 
dices, and  the  habitudes  of  mind  of  his  audience,  he  needs 
to  understand  what  occasions  or  induces  action  in  men,  — 
motives,  —  and'the  extent  to  which  these  motives  to  action 
hold  good  in  the  particular  audience  he  is  to  address.  To 
know  these  motives  is,  however,  no  easy  matter,  for  their 
name  is  legion :  love  of  country ;  easier  labor  in  one  case 
than  in  another;  desire  for  a  good  market  for  manufac- 
tures; love  of  fair  play;  love  of,  and  pride  in,  one's  self, 
one's  family,  city,  state,  country ;  social  and  political  ambi- 
tion; avarice,  anger,  hatred,  fear,  charitableness;  interest 
in  education,  literature,  or  the  fine  arts;  admiration  of 
courage,  perseverance,  coolness,  —  all  these  are  possible 
motives  for  action.  The  first  reason,  then,  why  the  study 
of  motives  in  mankind  is  difficult  is  their  number. 

Grades  in  motives.  A  second  difficulty  in  studying 
motives  for  action  is  that  motives  are  not  all  of  the  same 
rank.  Suppose  that  a  man  is  induced  to  buy  a  lot  of 
land,  not  because  he  has  any  real  use  for  it,  but  because 
he  knows  a  man  he  dislikes  wishes  to  buy  it.  He  will 
hardly  care  to  say  much  about  that  motive.  Suppose,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  he  buys  it  because  the  land,  in  a  wretched 
part  of  the  city,  has  been  long  used  by  poor  children  as 
a  playground,  and  he  knows  that,  if  he  does  not  buy  it, 
the  land  will  be  sold  to  a  man  who,  by  placing  build- 
ings on  it,  will  deprive  the  children  of  their  playground. 
Suppose  that  he  buys  it  even  at  some  inconvenience  to 


316  PRESENTATION 

himself,  because  he  is  public-spirited  and  fond  of  children. 
Will  not  his  own  opinion  of  himself,  and  particularly  the 
opinion  of  him  among  his  fellow-citizens,  improve  accord- 
ing to  the  differing  circumstances?  That  is,  there  are 
grades  in  the  motives  which  lead  to  action,  —  from  those 
which  regard  simply  the  good  of  the  individual,  through 
those  which  regard  the  good  of  some  class,  to  those  which 
regard  the  good  of  humanity.  Unfortunately,  too,  this 
grading  of  motives  varies  greatly  even  among  Christian 
peoples.  What  seems  very  important  to  one  man  may 
seem  far  less  so  to  another.  Even  in  the  same  country  the 
grading  may  vary.  For  instance,  love  of  the  arts,  of  litera- 
ture, of  science,  is  much  greater  in  some  cities  than  in 
others.  Any  man  who  has  lived  in  the  newer  West  knows 
that  in  some  regions  the  greatest  sin  is  stealing  horses. 
In  many  places  the  desire  to  gain  money  dominates  every 
other  motive.  Consequently,  a  student  of  persuasion  must 
know  not  only  what  in  general  are  the  motives  that  in 
human  beings  underlie  action  and  what  are  the  broad 
gradings  in  them  recognized  by  all  Christian  nations,  but 
also  what  grading  is  operative  in  the  particular  audience 
he  is  addressing.  Breadth  of  experience,  constant  study, 
persistent  practice,  —  these  are  the  essentials  to  successful 
persuasion.  The  careers  of  two  men  especially  famous  in 
persuasion  illustrate  this.  Lord  Erskine,  trained  first  in 
the  navy  and  later  in  the  army,  became  a  lawyer  who 
made  all  kinds  of  acquaintances  at  assizes  in  all  parts  ofi 
England.  During  this  wide  range  of  experience  he  studied 
his  fellow-men  enthusiastically  and  minutely,  constantly 
applying  the  results  of  his  study  in  his  speaking.  One 
has  only  to  read  his  speeches  to  see  that  his  eye  was 
always  on  the  faces  of  his  hearers.  Here  and  there,  from 


EIGHT  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  PERSUASION          317 

a  change  in  wording,  a  reiteration,  a  sudden  change  in 
attack,  one  learns  that  Lord  Erskine  saw  disagreement  or 
doubt  on  the  face  of  some  juryman  and  was  unwilling  to 
proceed  till  the  man  was  won  over.  Beecher,  too,  met  all 
sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  learned  to  read  their  faces 
and  figures  as  indices  of  their  mental  and  moral  powers,  — 
an  important  faculty  for  the  man  who  wishes  to  be  persua- 
sive, —  and  gained  a  profound  knowledge  of  the  motives 
for  action  in  his  fellow-men.  When  he  had  a  difficult  audi- 
ence to  meet  he  made  careful  inquiries  in  advance  as  to  its 
interests  and  prejudices,  and  fitted  his  treatment  of  his 
subject  to  these.  How  closely,  even  after  this  preparation, 
he  watched  his  audience  and  how  readily  he  adapted  his 
thought  and  phrase  to  its  mood  of  the  moment  his  Speech 
at  Liverpool l  shows. 

Eight  general  suggestions  for  persuasion.  In  treating 
conviction  it  was  possible  to  lay  down  principles  which 
will  apply  whenever  and  wherever  men  of  intelligence  be 
met,  but  what  has  just  been  said  must  show  that  no  such 
generally  and  persistently  useful  principles  of  persuasion 
can  be  given.  Some  general  suggestions  may,  however, 
be  made.  First,  before  addressing  any  audience  ascertain 
its  habits  of  mind.  *  Is  it  liberal  or  conservative,  religious 
or  free-thinking,  pledged  to  protection,  free  trade,  or  reci- 
procity? Not  to  know  such  facts  is,  perhaps,  to  affront 
an  audience  at  the  outset  and  almost  certainly  to  lose 
admirable  opportunities  of  making  the  material  appeal  to 
habits  of  mind  of  the  audience.  Beecher,  knowing  that 
in  Englishmen  love  of  fair  play  is  ingrained,  appealed  to 
it  in  the  opening  of  his  Speech  at  Liverpool*  Similarly 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  154-178. 

2  Idem,     pp.  41-59. 


318  PRESENTATION 

Junius  in  his  First  Letter,  after  stating  at  the  beginning 
the  frame  of  mind  toward  the  government  habitual  with 
most  Englishmen,  proceeded,  detail  by  detail,  to  show  how 
that  frame  of  mind  has  been  "  insulted  and  abused." 

Now  these  habits  of  mind  are  either  the  result  of  special 
interests  or  prejudices  of  the  audience  or  manifest  ^hem- 
selves  in  such  interests  and  prejudices.  Therefor^'  sec- 
ondly, before  addressing  an  audience  determine  as  far  as 
possible  what  are  its  special  interests  in  life  and  in  what 
way  the  special  topic  may  be  related  to  them.  Find,  if 
possible,  an  interest  so  vital  that  mere  recognition  of  its 
presence  stirs  the  particular  audience  to  action.  These 
interests  are,  of  course,  general,  those  which  they  share 
with  the  people  of  their  section,  state,  or  city;  or  special 
to  them  individually.  The  general  interests,  such  as  love 
of  country,  loyalty  to  county,  state,  city,  or  college,  have 
been  badly  overworked,  —  so  obvious  are  they  and  so  sure 
of  at  least  a  perfunctory  response.  To  determine  what  are 
the  interests  special  to  a  particular  audience  and  to  relate 
one's  material  to  these  is  no  doubt  difficult,  but  it  brings 
the  largest  returns  to  be  gained  in  persuasion.  Beecher 
in  his  Speech  at  Liverpool  pointed  out  that  the  freedom  for 
slaves  which  he  advocated  would  mean  a  better  market 
for  the  goods  of  his  hearers.  Demosthenes  in  his  First 
Philippic l  insisted  that  the  present  idleness  and  self-indul- 
gence of  the  Athenians  must  ultimately  mean  a  struggle 
against  Philip  for  the  very  life  of  the  country.  In  one  i 
part  of  the  Speech  at  Liverpool  Beecher  showed  that  his 
audience  was  responsible  for  the  very  evil  it  condemned. 

There  is  another  fact  that  I  wish  to  allude  to  —  not  for  the 
sake  of  reproach  or  blame,  but  by  way  of  claiming  your  more 

1  See  p.  335. 


EIGHT  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  PERSUASION          319 

lenient  consideration  —  and  that  is,  that  slavery  wa's  entailed 
upon  us  by  your  action.  Against  the  earnest  protests  of  the 
colonists  the  then  government  of  Great  Britain  —  I  will  con- 
cede not  knowing  what  were  the  mischiefs  —  ignorantly,  but 
in  point  of  fact,  forced  slave  traffic  on  the  unwilling  colonists. 
[Great  uproar  and  confusion.  .  .  .  The  disturbance  having 
subsided — ]  I  was  going  to  ask  you,  suppose  a  child  is  born 
with  hereditary  disease ;  suppose  this  disease  was  entailed 
upon  him  by  parents  who  had  contracted  it  by  their  own  mis- 
conduct, would  it  be  fair  that  those  parents  that  had  brought 
into  the  world  the  diseased  child,  should  rail  at  the  child 
because  it  was  diseased?  ["  No,  no  !  "]  Would  not  the  child 
have  a  right  to  turn  round  and  say:  "  Father,  it  was  your  fault 
that  I  had  it,  and  you  ought  to  be  pleased  to  be  patient  with 
my  deficiencies."  [Applause  and  hisses.  .  .  .  Much  disturb- 
ance.] I  do  not  ask  that  you  should  justify  slavery  in  us, 
because  it  was  wrong  in  you  two  hundred  years  ago;  but 
having  ignorantly  been  the  means  of  fixing  it  upon  us,  now 
that  we  are  struggling  with  mortal  struggles  to  free  ourselves 
from  it,  we  have  a  right  to  your  tolerance,  your  patience,  and 
charitable  constructions.1 

The  very  essence  of  Lincoln's  brief  greeting  to  the  166th 
Ohio  regiment  returning  from  the  Civil  War  is  that  the 
men  had  been  fighting  not  merely  to  preserve  their  country 
but  to  guarantee  the  future  of  their  children. 

Soldiers  :  I  suppose  you  are  going  home  to  see  your  families 
and  friends.  For  the  'services  you  have  done  in  this  great 
struggle  in  which  we  are  all  engaged,  I  present  you  sincere 
thanks  for  myself  and  the  country. 

I  almost  always  feel  inclined,  when  I  happen  to  say  any- 
thing to  soldiers,  to  impress  upon  them,  in  a  few  brief  remarks, 
the  importance  of  success  in  this  contest.  It  is  not  merely 
for  to-day,  but  for  all  time  to  come,  that  we  should  perpetuate 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,    pp.  176-176. 


320  PRESENTATION 

for  our  children's  'children  that  great  and  free  government 
which  we  have  enjoyed  all  our  lives.  I  beg  you  to  remember 
this,  not  merely  for  my  sake,  but  for  yours.  I  happen,  tem- 
porarily, to  occupy  the  White  House.  I  am  a  living  witness 
that  any  one  of  your  children  may  look  to  come  here  as  my 
father's  child  has.  It  is  in  order  that  each  one  of  you  may 
have,  through  this  free  government  which  we  have  enjoyed, 
an  open  field  and  a  fair  chance  for  your  industry,  enterprise, 
and  intelligence ;  that  you  may  all  have  equal  privileges  in 
the  race  of  life,  with  all  its  desirable  human  aspirations.  It 
is  for  this  the  struggle  should  be  maintained,  that  we  may 
not  lose  our  birthright  —  not  only  for  one,  but  for  two  or 
three  years.  The  nation  is  worth  fighting  for,  to  secure  such 
an  inestimable  jewel.1 

Disregard  of  differences  between  audiences  resulting 
from  local  characteristics  and  interests  is  a  frequent  cause 
of  failure.  A  political  speaker  once  complained  of  the 
unresponsiveness  of  a  Cape  Cod  audience  which  had 
the  evening  before  listened  in  silence,  almost  with  disap- 
probation, to  a  speech  which  had  been  delivered  amid 
cheers  early  in  the  week  in  a  western  town.  Questioning 
brought  out  that  the  speech  had  been  composed  for  the 
western  town,  and  that  because  of  its  great  success  it  had 
been  repeated  unchanged  in  phrase  or  delivery  on  Cape 
Cod.  Tommy  Dodd's  appeal  to  his  soldiers  and  the 
address  of  Colonel  Devens  to  his  men  after  their  first 
battle  illustrate  the  difference  in  approach  to  the  same 
end  made  necessary  when  regular  army  men  rather  than 
volunteers  are  addressed  and  under  widely  contrasting 
circumstances. 

Tallantire  gave  him  briefly  the  outlines  of  the  case,  and 
Tommy  Dodd  whistled  and  shook  with  fever  alternately, 

1  Forms  of  Address.     G.  P.  Baker,     p.  246.     H.  Holt  &  Co.     1904. 


EIGHT  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  PERSUASION         321 

That  day  he  devoted  to  strategy,  the  art  of  war,  and  the 
enlivemnent  of  the  invalids,  till  at  dusk  there  stood  ready 
forty -two  troopers,  lean,  worn,  and  dishevelled,  whom  Tommy 
Dodd  surveyed  with  pride,  and  addressed  thus :  "  O  men ! 
If  you  die  you  will  go  to  Hell.  Therefore  endeavour  to  keep 
alive.  But  if  you  go  to  Hell  that  place  cannot  be  hotter  than 
this  place,  and  we  are  not  told  that  we  shall  there  suffer  from 
fever.  Consequently  be  not  afraid  of  dying.  File  out  there  !  " 
They  grinned,  and  went.1 

Soldiers  of  Massachusetts,  men  of  Worcester  County,  with 
these  fearful  gaps  in  your  lines,  with  the  recollection  of  the 
terrible  struggle  of  Monday  fresh  upon  your  thoughts,  with 
the  knowledge  of  the  bereaved  and  soul-stricken  ones  at  home, 
weeping  for  those  whom  they  will  see  no  more  on  earth,  with 
that  hospital  before  your  eyes  filled  with  wounded  and  maimed 
comrades,  I  ask  you  now  whether  you  are  ready  to  again  meet 
the  traitorous  foe  who  are  endeavoring  to  subvert  our  gov- 
ernment, and  who  are  crushing  under  the  iron  heel  of  des- 
potism the  liberties  of  a  part  of  our  country.  Would  you 
go  next  week  ?  Would  you  go  to-morrow  ?  Would  you  go  this 
moment  ? 

One  hearty  "  Yes  "  burst  from  every  lip.2 

In  the  "third  place,  choose  the  highest  motives  to  which 
you  think  your  audience  will  respond.  If  a  speaker  feels 
it  necessary  to  appeal  to  motives  not  of  the  highest  grades 
he  should  see  to  it  that  before  he  closes  he  makes  them 
lead  into  high  motives.  In  the  Speech  at  Liverpool,  even 
as  Beecher  showed  that  his  main  appeal  would  be  to  the 
interest  of  his  audience  in  securing  a  good  market,  he 
connected  this  appeal  with  the  far  higher  motives  of 
mere  justice  and  the  good  of  humanity. 

1  Life's  Handicap.    Rudyard  Kipling.    Swastika  edition,    p.  204. 
*N&w  York  Herald,  October  30,  1861. 


322  PRESENTATION 

That  nation  is  the  best  customer  that  is  freest,  because 
freedom  works  prosperity,  industry,  and  wealth.  Great  Brit- 
ain, then,  aside  from  moral  considerations,  has  a  direct  com- 
mercial and  pecuniary  interest  in  the  liberty,  civilization,  and 
wealth  of  every  nation  on  the  globe.  [Loud  applause.]  You 
also  have  an  interest  in  this,  because  you  are  a  moral  and 
religious  people.  ["Oh,  oh!"  Laughter  and  applause.]  You 
desire  it  from  the  highest  motives  ;  and  godliness  is  profitable 
in  all  things,  having  the  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is,  as 
well  as  of  that  which  is  to  come ;  but  if  there  were  no  here- 
after, and  if  man  had  no  progress  in  this  life,  and  if  there 
were  no  question  of  civilization  at  all,  it  would  be  worth  your 
while  to  protect  civilization  and  liberty,  merely  as  a  com- 
mercial speculation.  To  evangelize  has  more  than  a  moral 
and  religious  import  —  it  comes  back  to  temporal  relations. 
Wherever  a  nation  that  is  crushed,  cramped,  degraded  under 
despotism  is  struggling  to  be  free,  you  —  Leeds,  Sheffield, 
Manchester,  Paisley  —  all  have  an  interest  that  that  nation 
should  be  free.  When  depressed  and  backward  people  demand 
that  they  may  have  a  chance  to  rise  —  Hungary,  Italy,  Poland 
—  it  is  a  duty  for  humanity's  sake,  it  is  a  duty  for  the  high- 
est moral  motives,  to  sympathize  with  them ;  but  besides  all 
these  there  is  a  material  and  an  interested  reason  why  you 
should  sympathize  with  them.  Pounds  and  pence  join  with 
conscience  and  with  honor  in  this  design.1 

What  gives  its  significance  to  the  suggestion  that  lower 
motives  should  be  brought  into  connection  with  higher  is 
that  few  men  are  willing  to  admit  that  they  have  acted 
from  motives  considered  low  or  mean.  Even  if  they  sus- 
pect this  to  be  the  case,  they  endeavor  to  convince  them- 
selves that  it  is  not  true.  In  an  audience  each  man  knows 
those  about  him  see  what  moves  him  in  the  speaker's 
words  and  therefore  he  yields  most  readily  to  a  motive 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,    pp.  163-164. 


EIGHT  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  PERSUASION          323 

which  he  knows  is  generally  commended  —  religious  feel- 
ing, charity,  devotion  to  one's  country,  etc.  But  the 
grading  of  the  innumerable  motives  which  are  not  instantly 
recognized  as  of  the  first  order  varies  not  only  in  different 
countries  and  in  different  states,  but  even  in  the  same 
audience.  One  man  may  feel  that  charity  begins  at  home, 
and  that,  therefore,  the  advancement  of  his  children  is  a 
very  high  motive ;  the  man  next  him  may  feel  that  care 
of  the  poor  of  a  city  is  an  even  greater  duty.  One  man 
may  exalt  his  duty  to  his  state  or  city  above  his  duty  to 
his  country,  and  his  neighbor  may  feel  that  the  country 
is  more  important  than  all  else.  Since,  then,  men  yield 
more  willingly  to  motives  generally  commended,  and  since 
unanimity  of  action  is  more  easily  gained  when  the  high- 
est motives  are  addressed,  this  corollary  to  the  suggestion 
last  made  may  be  formulated :  The  larger  the  audience,  the 
higher  the  motives  to  which  an  appeal  may  be  made. 

Inertia  is  one  of  the  worst  enemies  of  the  public  speaker, 
the  philanthropist,  the  worker  for  civic  betterment,  of  any 
man  who  tries  to  change  established  conditions.  How  may 
an  indifferent  public  be  aroused  is  their  chief  problem. 
The  search  for  an  effective  motive,  or  group  of  motives, 
becomes  absorbing  here.  Sometimes  one  may  dissipate 
inertia  by  moving  from  a  general  principle  known  to  be 
admitted  to  the  particular  plan  favored  or  the  condition 
to  be  reprehended  and  improved,  but  this  device  of  Junius 
in  his  First  Letter  is  really  only  the  method  already  ex- 
plained of  relating  one's  subject  to  the  interests  or  the 
habitual  opinions  of  one's  audience.  The  public  may  be 
unresponsive  because  it  thinks  it  has  already  heard  enough 
of  the  subject  in  question,  is  unaware  of  evil  or  unde- 
sirable conditions  known  to  the  speaker,  is  disappointed 


324  PRESENTATION 

because  an  unknown  speaker  has  been  substituted  for  one 
very  popular,  is  hopeless,  or  is  too  timid  to  face  a  grave 
situation  squarely.  In  any  of  these  conditions  it  may  be 
helpful  to  startle  the  audience  into  close  attention  at  the 
outset.  Sensationalism  in  public  speaking,  particularly  in 
sermons,  is  a  misapplication  of  this  means,  at  times  entirely 
proper,  of  overcoming  the  inertia  or  the  unresponsiveness 
of  an  audience.  Demosthenes  was  fond  of  beginnings  so 
paradoxical  that  his  audience  became  instantly  eager  to 
learn  how  such  statements  could  be  reconciled  with  truth. 
He  used  this  method  in  his  First  Philippic  to  rouse  the 
Athenians  from  their  hopelessness  in  regard  to  resisting 
Philip  of  Macedon. 

First,  I  say,  you  must  not  despond,  Athenians,  under  your 
present  circumstances,  wretched  as  they  are ;  for  that  which 
is  worst  in  them  as  regards  the  past,  is  best  for  the  future. 
What  do  I  mean  ?  That  your  affairs  are  amiss,  men  of  Athens, 
because  you  do  nothing  which  is  needful ;  if  it  were  the  same 
even  when  you  performed  your  duties,  there  would  be  no  hope 
of  amendment.1 

In  an  article  on  The  Child  and  the  State,  David  Dudley 
Field  swiftly  roused  his  audience  to  attention  by  a  star- 
tling contrast. 

"The  Homeless  Boy"  is  the  title  of  a  wood-cut  circulated 
by  the  Children's  Aid  Society.  It  is  a  sad  picture.  The  little 
waif  sits  on  a  stone  step,  with  his  head  bent  over  and  resting 
on  his  hands,  stretched  across  bare  knees,  his  flowing  hair 
covering  his  face,  and  his  tattered  clothes  and  bare  feet 
betokening  utter  wretchedness.  Turning  the  leaf,  we  are 
informed  that  twenty  dollars  will  enable  the  society  to  give 
the  boy  a  home.  .  .  .  How  many  of  such  homeless  children 

1  Olynthiacs  and  Philippics.    Demosthenes.    Bohn  edition,    p.  61. 


EIGHT  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  PERSUASION         325 

are  there  in  the  city  of  New  York  ?  We  are  told  that  there 
are  at  least  twelve  thousand  under  twelve  years  of  age ;  seven 
thousand  of  them  having  no  shelter,  not  knowing  at  morning 
where  they  can  sleep  at  night,  and  the  rest  having  only  shel- 
ters revolting  to  behold.  Less  than  $250,000  then  would  give 
them  all  decent  and  comfortable  homes.  Every  night  that 
these  twelve  thousand  children  are  wandering  in  the  streets 
or  lurking  about  rum-shops  and  dance-houses,  or  huddled  in 
dens  that  are  as  foul  in  air  as  they  are  foul  in  occupants,  that 
sum  many  times  over  is  spent  in  superfluous  luxury.  Rich 
parlors  and  wide  halls  are  filled  nightly  with  pleasure-seekers, 
where  the  air  is  sweetened  with  the  perfume  of  flowers,  music 
wafted  with  the  perfume,  and  the  light  is  like  "  a  new  morn 
risen  on  mid  noon."  The  voice  of  mirth  in  the  ball-room 
drowns  the  wail  of  the  children  beyond,  and  when  the  night 
pales  into  morning,  the  dancers  go  home  rejoicing  and  the 
children  go  about  the  streets.  Surely  there  must  be  something 
wrong  with  our  civilization,  our  Christian  civilization,  so  long 
as  these  strange  contrasts  are  permitted  to  last.1 

Such  assurance  as  Senator  Mason  startled  his  hearers 
with  in  the  following  is  safe  only  when  the  speaker  is 
perfectly  sure  that  the  end  will  justify  the  means:  — 

Back  in  the  '80's,  when  the  late  President  McKinley  and 
"  Tom "  Reed  were  making  their  reputations  on  the  floor  of 
the  House,  the  Republican  citizens  of  Yonkers,  New  York, 
undertook  to  organize  the  greatest  political  rally  in  the  history 
of  that  place.  Consequently  their  first  effort  was  to  secure  a 
campaign  orator  of  the  highest  order,  and  the  committee  on 
speakers,  after  much  debate,  decided  that  only  Mr.  McKinley 
or  Mr.  Reed  would  measure  up  to  the  standard.  .  .  .  There 
was  great  gloom  at  Yonkers  when  a  telegram  was  received 
there  reading  substantially  as  follows :  "  Impossible  to  send 

1  The  Forms  of  Public  Address,    pp.  310-311. 


326  PRESENTATION 

either  McKinley  or  Reed.  Will  send  you  Hon.  William  E. 
Mason.77  .  .  .  The  disappointment  and  resentment  at  the  fail- 
ure of  the  State  Central  Committee  to  send  either  Mr.  McKin- 
ley or  Mr.  Reed  was  ill  concealed  and  at  once  apparent  to 
Congressman  Mason,  who  had  been  forewarned  that  he  would 
have  to  "  thaw  out "  both  the  local  committee  and  the  audience. 
After  the  unknown  speaker  of  the  day  had  listened  to  a  nicely 
qualified  and  adroitly  noncommittal  introduction  of  himself  he 
arose  and  began  his  address  in  these  words :  "  As  the  servant 
of  the  National  Committee,  and  subject  to  its  dictates,  I  have 
been  sent  here  against  your  will  and  against  mine  to  do  serv- 
ice as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  McKinley  and  Mr.  Reed.  It  may 
shock  the  modesty  and  good  taste  of  some  of  the  inhabitants 
of  this  beautiful  and  aristocratic  place,  but  I  am  bound  to 
tell  you,  right  at  the  start,  that  I  can  make  a  better  political 
speech  than  either  William  McKinley  or  Tom  Reed  —  even 
if  I  am  'not  known  here.7  Now,  if  I. fail  to  make  good  this 
boast  you  can,  when  I  have  finished  my  speech,  call  me  down 
publicly  and  as  severely  as  you  wish.77  .  .  .  Before  the  speech 
was  half  delivered  Mr.  Mason7s  hearers  were  shouting  with 
laughter  and  delight  at  his  stories,  his  inimitable  flashes  of  j 
wit  and  his  cutting  characterization  of  Democratic  doctrines 
and  foibles.  At  the  conclusion  of  his  speech  Mr.  Mason  was 
almost  carried  bodily  from  the  platform.1 

Junius  throughout  his  First  Letter  depends  chiefly  upon 
daring  to  say  what  many  have  hardly  dared  to  think.  At 
the  end  he  startles  in  order  to  gain  emphasis,  —  another  use 
to  which  the  device  may  often  be  put.  After  a  terrible  ar- 
raignment of  the  chief  officers  of  the  government,  but  only 
by  the  names  of  their  offices,  he  unexpectedly  throws  off  all 
indirectness  as  he  closes,  naming  each  offender.  So  doing 
he  stamps  his  ideas  on  the  startled  mind  of  the  reader. 

1  Spellbinders  and  Straw  Ballots.  F.  Crissey.  The  Header,  Novem- 
ber, 1904.  pp.  640-641. 


ORDER  IN  PERSUASION  327 

If  by  the  immediate  interposition  of  Providence,  it  were 
possible  for  us  to  escape  a  crisis  so  full  of  terror  and  despair, 
posterity  will  not  believe  the  history  of  the  present  times. 
They  will  either  conclude  that  our  distresses  were  imaginary, 
or  that  we  had  the  good  fortune  to  be  governed  by  men  of 
acknowledged  integrity  and  wisdom.  They  will  not  believe  it 
possible  that  their  ancestors  could  have  survived,  or  recovered 
from  so  desperate  a  condition,  while  a  Duke  of  Grafton  was 
Prime  Minister,  a  Lord  North  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
a  Weymouth  and  a  Hillsborough  Secretaries  of  State,  a  Granby 
Commander-in-Chief,  and  a  Mansfield  chief  criminal  judge  of 
the  kingdom.1 

Just  as  the  very  nature  of  the  task  which  has  been  set 
a  speaker  determines  his  order  in  refutation,  so,  too,  it 
affects  his  order  in  persuasion.  When  he  need  simply 
urge  people  to  continue  in  accustomed  action,  or  to  carry 
out  a  purpose  already  formed,  he  may  arrange  his  persua- 
sion in  climactic  order,  for  even  a  very  slight  amount  will 
probably  move  his  audience  in  the  right  direction.  If, 
however,  he  wishes  to  urge  men  to  give  up  doing  some- 
thing to  which  they  have  become  accustomed,  or  to  forego 
a  purpose  already  well  established  in  their  minds,  he  must 
naturally,  as  in  the  case  of  refuting  long-established  ideas, 
bring  forward  his  strongest  material  first.  When  he  has 
stirred  his  audience  by  his  first  strong  appeal  he  can  main- 
tain his  effect  with  other  appeals,  each  of  which  would  not 
have  been  strong  enough,  alone  at  the  outset,  to  rouse  the 
audience.  In  rare  cases  it  is  effective  to  hold  back  all 
direct  persuasion  till  late  in  a  speech.  For  instance,  in 
Lord  Mansfield's  Defense  of  Allan  Uvans2thQ  first  fourteen 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,    pp.  58-59. 

2  Idem.    pp.  22-40.     This  speech  should  be  carefully  analyzed  by  the 
class  for  its  ordering  of  its  persuasion. 


328  PRESENTATION 

pages  contain  no  direct  persuasion.  Instead  of  creating 
at  the  start  a  feeling  that  the  persecutors  of  Evans  have 
been  cruelly  unjust,  Mansfield  moved,  with  no  apparent 
emotion  whatever,  from  a  swift,  brief-like  outline  of  his 
case  to  detailed  consideration  of  all  the  possible  posi- 
tions of  his  opponents.  When,  within  three  pages  of 
the  end,  he  at  last  turned  to  persuasion,  he  had  already 
made  his  hearers  feel,  without  one  word  of  his  directly 
bearing  on  the  matter,  that  some  evil  plan  must  lie  back 
of  conduct  so  clearly  illegal  as  that  of  the  persecutors  of 
Evans.  Knowing  well  the  hatred  of  the  Jesuits  current 
at  the  time,  he  next  strengthened  the  suspicion  by  making 
his  hearers  see  the  Jesuitical  nature  of  the  attempt;  and 
finally,  when  his  hearers  were  ready  to  break  out  with 
the  suspicion  so  strongly  did  they  feel  it,  he  phrased  it 
forcibly  for  them,  supporting  his  accusation  by  references 
to  the  case  and  by  analogy.  Then  with  a  swift  summary 
he  closed.  Though  throughout  the  greater  part  cf  the 
speech  the  sincerity  and  the  impartiality  of  treatment  are 
indirectly  persuasive,  the  direct  persuasion  is  confined  to 
but  two  pages  near  the  end.  In  persuasion;  then,  one's 
ideas  must  be  both  selected  and  ordered  in  relation  to  the 
audience  addressed. 

The  fine  unity  of  Lincoln's  speech  to  the  166th  Ohio  JL 
regiment  proves  the  value  of  a  seventh  suggestion.    Unify^  / 
your  persuasion  for  a  definite  purpose.    Do  not  depenCTon 
scattered  attempts,  but  see  that  wherever  your  persuasion 
appears    it  conduces    to  pervasive  persuasion   and  leads 
unmistakably  to  a  definite  final  effect.     Never  leave  an 
audience  vague   as  to  what  it  should  do.     Develop  the 
final  impulse  slowly,   division  by  division,  if  you  like ; 
hint,  suggest,   rather   than   directly  state   it,  if  for   any 


EIGHT  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  PERSUASION         329 

reason  that  seems  best ;  but  never  obscure  your  persuasive 
aim.  Though  Antony  never  bade  the  mob  about  dead 
Caesar's  body  revenge  the  murder,  he  did  not  cease  speak- 
ing till  he  saw  the  purpose  he  desired  kindling  in  their 
minds.1  On  the  other  hand,  a  brilliant  speaker  once  roused 
a  group  of  college  students  to  great  enthusiasm  by  his 
eloquent  lectures  on  Eloquence.  But  when  they  tried  to 
apply  their  enthusiasm,  they  found  they  had  not  been 
given  one  working  principle,  and  the  enthusiasm  quickly 
faded  —  resultless.  tf" 

Finally,  be  flexible:  gain  the  power  of  shifting  your 
plans  quickly,  of  adapting  yourself  to  unexpected  contin- 
gencies. No  matter  how  carefully  one  prepares  a  speech 
for  some  particular  audience,  there  is  always  the  chance 
that  some  unforeseen  happening  may  so  complicate  or  sim- 
plify the  expected  task  that  the  original  plan  must  be 
modified  or  thrown  over.  If,  for  instance,  a  preceding- 
prosy  speaker  has  run  over  into  your  time  and  the  audience 
is  growing  restless,  cut  down  your  speech  if  possible  to 
less  than  the  time  assigned  you  and  strike  at  once  to  some- 
thing in  it  especially  interesting.  The  return  in  reawak- 
ened interest,  and  in  sympathy  caused  by  gratitude  that 
you  do  not  abuse  your  privilege  as  did  your  predecessor, 
will  probably  offset  the  loss  in  your  material.  Keep  your 
eyes  on  the  audience,  watching  the  effect  of  each  part  of 
your  work,  and,  if  you  are  debating,  of  each  part  of  your 
opponent's  work.  Be  ready  to  aid  your  audience  or  to  be 
aided  by  it.  No  speech  is  either  a  failure  or  a  success  till 
the  last  word  is  said:  many  a  good  beginning  has  lapsed 
into  a  weak  ending,  and  many  a  poor  start  has  been 
redeemed  by  a  quickness  of  wit  which  threw  over  what 
1  Julius  Ccesar.  Act  III,  Sc.  2. 


330  PRESENTATION 

was  prepared  and  facing  conditions  unforeseen  grappled 
with  them  successfully. 

Combined  use  of  the  eight  suggestions.  Of  course,  mas- 
terly persuasion  uses  one  or  more  of  these  suggestions 
as  experience  and  intuition  prompt.  Beecher's  Speech 
at  Liverpool  shows  skillful  recognition  of  all  of  them. 
Beecher  planned  it  on  the  idea  that  an  English  audience 
habitually  likes  fair  play,  courage,  independence,  and 
good  nature.  He  asked  for  the  first  because  he  could 
offer  the  other  three  in  exchange.  He  constantly  sought 
to  show  the  audience  the  connection  between  his  subject 
and  their  personal  interests.  He  knew  that  it  is  safest  to 
appeal  to  high  motives,  and  that  when  lower  motives  are 
used  they  must  lead  into  higher.  His  experience  told 
him  that  in  so  large  an  audience  as  his  he  might  well 
connect  his  special  appeal  with  the  highest  motives.  He 
startled  his  audience  more  than  once  by  his  frankness,  his 
courage,  or  his  swift  turning  of  the  tables.  The  persua- 
sion of  each  'division  worked  toward  a  purpose  which  is 
stated  first  in  the  last  paragraphs  of  the  address.  Nearly 
every  page  illustrates  his  skill  in  grappling  with  condi- 
tions which  could  not  have  been  foreseen.  Indeed,  as  an 
illustration  of  successful  coping  with  problems  of  persua- 
sion raised  by  the  nature  of  the  subject,  the  relation  of  the 
speaker  to  it  and  to  the  audience,  and  the  relation  of  the 
audience  to  the  subject,  the  Speech  at  Liverpool  should  be 
studied  from  end  to  end.1 

Summary  of  eight  suggestions  for  persuasion.  For  ref- 
erence the  suggestions  just  expounded  are  tabulated. 

1  See  Specimens  of  Argumentation,  pp.  154-178.  For  a  similar  masterly 
use  of  the  methods  in  combination  see  the  Olynthiacs  and  the  Philippics 
of  Demosthenes. 


SUMMARY  OF  EIGHT  SUGGESTIONS  331 

1.  Ascertain    the    habits    of    mind    of    your   proposed 
audience. 

2.  Determine  the  special  interests  and  the  idiosyncrasies 
of  your  audience. 

3.  Connect  lower  with  higher  motives. 

4.  Remember  that  the  larger  the  audience  the  higher 
the  motives  to  which  appeal  may  be  made. 

5.  Startling     an    audience    may   rout    indifference    or 
effectively  emphasize. 

6.  Let  the  nature  of  your  task  determine  the  order  of 
your  persuasion. 

7.  Unify  the  persuasion  for  some  definite  purpose. 

8.  Be  flexible;  adapt  the  work  to  unexpected  exigencies. 

IV.   EXCITATION 

The  methods  already  explained  do  not,  however,  exhaust 
all  means  of  persuasion.  The  Puritan  divine  of  early 
colonial  days  not  only  showed  his  audience  that  it  was 
to  their  interest  to  be  upright,  but  by  pictures  of  the  per- 
sonal torture  they  would  hereafter  endure  if  they  were 
not,  terrified  refractory  persons  into  obedience.  To-day,  a 
lawyer  trying  to  convince  a  jury  that  certain  anarchists 
should  be  punished  for  throwing  bombs,  not  only  points 
out  how  it  touches  the  interests  of  the  jurors  as  citizens 
and  fathers  that  such  outrages  should  cease,  but  paints 
vividly  for  them  the  scene  of  horror  caused  by  the  bomb- 
throwing.  In  each  case  the  effort  is  to  stir  an  audience  to 
emotion  so  strong  that  it  will  seek  relief  in  action,  and, 
since  the  act  suggested  by  the  speaker  is  placed  most 
vividly  before  the  hearers,  relief  in  that  particular  action. 
Excitation  —  arousing  the  emotions,  the  passions — is,  then, 
another  means  of  persuasion. 


332  PRESENTATION 

Two  meansj&f  arousing  emotion.  We  may  arouse  emotion 
in  our  felloW  Either  by  dwelling  on  matters  likely  to  stir 
these  desired  emotions  or  by  exhibiting  the  emotions  our- 
selves. Illustrations  given  under  divisions  I,  II,  and  III 
of  this  chapter  sufficiently  exemplify  the  first  method.1 
Every  child  who  uses  tears  as  a  means  of  getting  what  it 
wants  illustrates  the  second  method.  The  effect  on  Daniel 
Webster's  audience  of  the  emotion  which  for  a  moment 
overcame  him  as  he  pleaded  the  cause  of  Dartmouth 
College,  his  alma  mater,  is  famous. 

When  Webster  had  finished  his  argument  he  stood  silent 
for  some  moments,  until  every  eye  was  fixed  upon  him,  then, 
addressing  the  Chief  Justice,  he  said :  — 

"  This,  sir,  is  my  case.  It  is  the  case  not  merely  of  that 
humble  institution,  it  is  the  case  of  every  college  in  our 
land.  .  .  . 

"  Sir,  you  may  destroy  this  little  institution ;  it  is  weak ;  -it 
is  in  your  hands  !  I  know  it  is  one  of  the  lesser  lights  in  the 
literary  horizon  of  our  country.  You  may  put  it  out.  But  if 
you  do  you  must  carry  through  your  work  !  You  must  extin- 
guish, one  after  another,  all  those  greater  lights  of  science 
which  for  more  than  a  century  have  thrown  their  radiance 
over  our  land.  It  is,  sir,  as  I  have  said,  a  small  college,  and 
yet  there  are  those  who  love  it." 

Here  his  feelings  mastered  him ;  his  eyes  filled  with  tears, 
his  lips  quivered,  his  voice  was  choked.  In  broken  words  of 
tenderness  he  spoke  of  his  attachment  to  the  college,  and  his 
tones  seemed  filled  with  the  memories  of  home  and  boyhood ; 
of  early  affections  and  youthful  privations  and  struggles. 

"  The  court  room,"  said  Mr.  Goodrich,  to  whom  we  owe 
this  description,  "  during  these  two  or  three  minutes  presented 
an  extraordinary  spectacle.  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  with  his 
tall  and  gaunt  figure  bent  over  as  if  to  catch  the  slightest 

1  See  especially  pp.  304-327. 


THE  DANGER   OF   SHOWING  STRONG  EMOTION     333 

!  whisper,  the  deep  furrows  of  his  cheek  expanded  with  emotion 
and  his  eyes  suffused  with  tears  ;  Mr.  Justice  Washington,  at 
his  side,  with  his  small  and  emaciated  frame,  and  countenance 
more  like  marble  than  I  ever  saw  on  any  other  human  being, — 
leaning  forward  with  an  eager,  troubled  look, — and  the  remain- 
der of  the  court  at  the  two  extremities,  pressing,  as  it  were, 
to  a  single  point,  while  the  audience  below  were  wrapping 
themselves  round  in  closer  folds  beneath  the  bench,  to  catch 
each  look  and  every  movement  of  the  speaker's  face.  .  .  . 

"  Mr.  Webster  had  now  recovered  his  composure,  and,  fixing 
his  keen  eye  on  the  Chief  Justice,  said,  in  that  deep  tone 
with  which  he  sometimes  thrilled  the  heart  of  an  audience  :  — 

"  <  Sir,  I  know  not  how  others  may  feel '  (glancing  at  the 
opponents  of  the  college  before  him),  'but  for  myself,  when 
I  see  my  Alma  Mater  surrounded,  like  Caesar  in  the  senate- 
house,  by  those  who  are  reiterating  stab  after  stab,  I  would 
not,  for  this  right  hand,  have  her  turn  to  me,  and  say,  Et  tu 
quoque,  mi  fill  !  And  tJiou  too,  my  son  !  }  JM 

The  danger  of  showing  strong  emotion.  Because  exhibi- 
tion of  emotion  is  often  an  easy  way  of  moving  other  peo- 
ple to  act  as  we  wish,  it  has  been  abused  as  a  means  of 
persuasion.  Expression  of  strong  emotion  is  really  dan- 
gerous unless  one's  hearers  are  in  full  sympathy  with  it ; 
they  will  feel  in  it,  especially  if  highly  refined,  something 
a  little  repellent  because  too  uncontrolled.  Moreover,  fre- 
quent dependence  on  this  method  of  persuasion  weakens 
its  effect.  An  audience,  seeing  that  the  speaker  seems  to 
feel  readily  any  emotion,  begins  to  doubt  the  genuineness 
of  this  feeling,  wondering  whether  it  is  at  best  more  than 
perhaps  unconscious  acting  of  a  high  order.  If  it  decides 
that  the  display  of  emotion  is  really  but  acting,  it  may 

1  Daniel  Webster.  H.  C.  Lodge,  pp.  89-91.  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co. 
1892. 


334  PRESENTATION 

admire  the  man  as  an  actor ;  it  will  not  long  do  his  bid- 
ding. The  late  Dr.  Phelps  wrote  of  free  display  of  emo- 
tion :  "  It  is  a  misfortune  to  be  unable  to  suppress  tears. 
I  once  knew  a  preacher  whose  most  remarkable  quality 
was  the  readiness  with  which  he  wept.  He  once  shed  tears 
in  exhorting  Christians  not  to  be  tardy  in  their  attendance 
at  the  weekly  meeting  of  the  church.  He  was  wonder- 
fully attractive  on  a  first  hearing,  but  he  had  ten  brief 
settlements."  :  On  the  other  hand,  the  exhibition  of  strong 
emotion  by  a  nature  noted  for  its  self-control  may  sweep 
all  before  it.  Rufus  Choate  said  of  Daniel  Webster's 
momentary  loss  of  self-control  just  described :  "  One  thing 
it  taught  me,  that  the  pathetic  depends  not  merely  on  the 
words  uttered,  but  still  more  on  the  estimate  we  put  upon 
him  who  utters  it." 

For  a  speaker  to  say  to  himself  during  the  preparation 
of  his  address  :  "  This  idea  gives  me  a  chance  for  a  stirring 
burst  of  emotion,  therefore  here  I  will  let  my  audience  see 
how  moved  I  am  "  has  the  theatric  about  it,  and  may  lead 
to  failure.  It  is  safer  in  planning  persuasion  to  trust  to 
relating  one's  ideas  to  motives  operant  in  the  audience  and 
to  depicting  conditions  which  should  arouse  emotion.  If 
it  kindles  in  the  very  words  of  a  speaker,  if  in  spite  of  his 
efforts  to  the  contrary  it  overmasters  him,  he  will  be  very 
persuasive,  but  if  it  does  not  arise  in  these  ways,  a  note 
of  insincerity  will  probably  spoil  its  effect.2  A  student 
should  remark  here  the  difference  between  the  art  of  the 
orator  and  the  art  of  the  actor.  The  success  of  the  actor 
is  complete  if  his  audience  feels:  "This  is  the  perfect  sim- 
ulation of  anger,  grief,  mirth,  misery."  For  the  orator 

1  Theory  of  Preaching.    Phelps.    p.  568.    C.  Scribner's  Sons. 

2  See  the  experience  of  Lord  Erskine  cited  on  p.  298. 


QUALITIES  ESSENTIAL  IN   EMOTIONAL  APPEAL    335 

that  judgment  is  the  doom  of  his  persuasive  work.  His 
audience  must  be  swept  out  of  its  critical  self-control  into 
participation  in  the  anger,  grief,  mirth,  or  misery,  so  com- 
plete as  to  take  action  in  consequence  of  it.  The  orator 
has  a  special  act  in  mind  as  the  end  of  his  persuasion;  the 
actor  has  not. 

Three  qualities  essential  in  any  appeal  to  the  emotions.  In 
all  attempts  to  stir  emotion  three  qualities  are  essential*-tact- 
ful  avoidance  of  anything  that  mag-arouse  feelings  hostile 
to  the  end  the  speaker  has  in  viewjvividness,  arkfibrevity. 
In  excitation  tact  corresponds  to  refutation  in  conviction, 
for  as  in  refutation  safety  lies  in  knowing  or  in  guessing 
accurately  what  your  opponent  thinks  about  your  case,  so 
in  persuasion  safety  lies  in  knowing  or  in  guessing  what  he 
feels  about  each  part  of  your  work.  Demosthenes  in  his 
First  Philippic  illustrates  admirably  what  tact  may  do  in 
avoiding  dangerous  emotion  which  words  that  must  be 
uttered  may  arouse.  He  wished  to  make  his  audience  feel 
that  Philip  owed  his  success  not  so  much  to  his  own 
genius  as  to  their  past  indolence.  In  order  to  make  this 
clear,  he  must  show  how  Philip  had  gained  his  power  step 
by  step,  and  the  proportions  to  which  it  had  grown.  But 
he  must  be  on  his  guard  constantly  lest  insistence  on  this 
growing  greatness  and  vast  power  should  so  terrify  the 
Athenians  that  they  should  say :  "  Remonstrance  is  use- 
less. Let  us  make  the  best  terms  we  can  since  we  have 
thrown  away  our  chances":  — 

First  I  say,  you  must  not  despond,  Athenians,  under  your 
present  circumstances,  wretched  as  they  are,  for  that  which 
is  worst  in  them  as  regards  the  past,  is  best  for  the  future. 
What  do  I  mean?  That  your  affairs  are  amiss,  men  of  Athens, 
because  you  do  nothing  which  is  needful  j  if,  notwithstanding 


336  PRESENTATION 

you  performed  your  duties,  it  were  the  same,  there  would  be 
no  hope  of  amendment. 

Consider  next, — what  you  know  by  report,  and  men  of  expe- 
rience remember, — how  vast  a  power  the  Lacedaemonians  had 
not  long  ago,  yet  how  nobly  and  becomingly  you  consulted 
the  dignity  of  Athens,  and  undertook  the  war  against  them 
for  the  rights  of  Greece.  Why  do  I  mention  this  ?  To  show 
and  convince  you,  Athenians,  that  nothing,  if  you  take  pre- 
caution, is  to  be  feared,  nothing,  if  you  are  negligent,  goes  as 
you  desire.  Take  for  examples  the  strength  of  the  Lacedae- 
monians then,  which  you  overcame  by  attention  to  your  duties, 
and  the  insolence  of  this  man  now,  by  which  through  neglect 
of  our  interests  we  are  confounded.  But  if  any  among  you, 
Athenians,  deem  Philip  hard  to  be  conquered,  looking  at  the 
magnitude  of  his  existing  power,  and  the  loss  by  us  of  all  our 
strongholds,  they  reason  rightly,  but  should  reflect,  that  once 
we  held  Pydna  and  Potidsea  and  Methone  and  all  the  region 
round  about  as  our  own,  and  many  of  the  nations  now  leagued 
with  him  were  independent  and  free,  and  preferred  our 
friendship  to  his.  Had  Philip  then  taken  it  into  his  head, 
that  it  was  difficult  to  contend  with  Athens,  when  she  had  so 
many  fortresses  to  infest  his  country,  and  he  was  destitute 
of  allies,  nothing  that  he  has  accomplished  would  he  have 
undertaken,  and  never  would  he  have  acquired  so  large  a 
dominion.  But  he  saw  well,  Athenians,  that  all  these  places 
are  the  open  prizes  of  war,  that  the  possessions  of  the  absent 
naturally  belong  to  the  present,  those  of  the  remiss  to  them 
that  will  venture  and  toil.  Acting  on  such  principle,  he  has 
won  everything  and  keeps  it,  either  by  way  of  conquest,  or 
by  friendly  attachment  and  alliance  ;  for  all  men  will  side 
with  and  respect  those,  whom  they  see  prepared  and  willing 
to  make  proper  exertion.  If  you,  Athenians,  will  adopt  this 
principle  now,  though  you  did  not  before,  and  every  man. 
where  he  can  and  ought  to  give  his  service  to  the  state,  be 
ready  to  give  it  without  excuse,  the  wealthy  to  contribute,  the 
able-bodied  to  enlist;  in  a  word,  plainly,  if  you  will  become 


TACT  — BREVITY  AND  VIVIDNESS  337 

our  own  masters,  and  cease  each  expecting  to  do  nothing 
dmself,  while  his  neighbor  does  everything  for  him,  you 
hall  then  with  heaven's  permission  recover  your  own,  and  get 
>ack  what  has  been  frittered  away,  and  chastise  Philip.  Do 
tot  imagine,  that  his  empire  is  everlastingly  secured  to  him  as 
L  god.  There  are  who  hate  and  fear  and  envy  him,  Athenians, 
ven  among  those  who  seem  most  friendly ;  and  all  feelings 
hat  are  in  other  men  belong,  we  may  assume,  to  his  confed- 
erates. But  now  they  are  all  cowed,  having  no  refuge  through 
rour  tardiness  and  indolence,  which  I  say  you  must  abandon 
'orthwith.  For  you  see,  Athenians,  the  case,  to  what  pitch  of 
irrogance  the  man  has  advanced,  who  leaves  you  not  even 
,he  choice  of  action  or  inaction,  but  threatens  and  uses  (they 
,ay)  outrageous  language,  and,  unable  to  rest  in  possession 
jf  his  conquests,  continually  widens  their  circle,  and,  while 
ve  dally  and  delay,  throws  his  net  all  around  us.  When 
ihen,  Athenians,  when  will  ye  act  as  becomes  you  ?  In  what 
ivent?  In  that  of  necessity,  I  suppose.  And  how  should  we 
•egard  the  events  happening  now  ?  Methinks,  to  freemen  the 
strongest  necessity  is  the  disgrace  of  their  condition.  Or  tell 
ne,  do  ye  like  walking  about  and  asking  one  another  : — Is  there 
my  news  ?  Why,  could  there  be  greater  news  than  a  man  of 
Macedonia  subduing  Athenians,  and  directing  the  affairs  of 
jGreece?  Is  Philip  dead?  No,  but  he  is  sick.  And  what 
matters  it  to  you?  Should  anything  befall  this  man,  you  will 
soon  create  another  Philip,  if  you  attend  to  business  thus. 
For  even  he  has  been  exalted  not  so  much  by  his  own  strength, 
as  by  our  negligence.1 

Brevity  and  vividness.  Any  appeal  to  the  emotions  must 
have  a  strong  element  of  the  dramatic  in  it,  and  any  stu- 
dent of  dramatic  technique  knows  that  two  of  the  main 
(essentials  in  play-writing  are  vividness  of  phrase  and  brev- 
ity as  great  as  conveying  one's  exact  meaning  will  allow. 

1  Olynthiacs  and  Philippics.     Demosthenes,     pp.  61-63.     Bohn  ed. 


338  PRESENTATION 

The  chief  source  of  brevity  and  vividness  dramatically  is 
selection.  That  is,  a  dramatist  does  not  give  all  the 
details  of  the  lives  of  his  characters  or  of  their  conversa- 
tions, but  selects  those  parts  which  are  most  significant  for 
his  purpose.  Similarly  a  speaker,  in  making  any  direct 
appeal  to  the  emotions,  should  give  only  the  essential  or 
striking  features  of  that  which  moves  him  or  is  intended 
to  move  his  hearers.  The  anecdote  of  General  Garfield  in 
the  next  paragraph  well  illustrates  this. 

The  value  in  persuasion  of  concreteness.  A  great  aid  to 
vividness  and  brevity  in  excitation  is  concreteness.  Anec- 
dotes, examples,  analogies,  illustrations  of  all  kinds,  as  the 
swiftest  method  of  making  clear  the  persuasive  means 
selected,  are  indispensable  in  excitation.  This  concrete- 
ness  of  statement  is  a  marked  characteristic  of  the  addresses 
of  the  great  "  revivalists  "  of  the  last  twenty  years.  Any 
one  who  heard  the  late  D.  L.  Moody  speak  must  recognize 
that  much  of  his  power  lay  in  the  emotion  caused  by  his 
vivid  stories  and  his  dramatic  illustrations.  A  famous 
brief  speech  of  General  Garfield  shows  the  great  value  of 
concreteness  in  persuasion. 

After  the  battle  of  Bull  Run,  conflicting  rumors  steadily 
poured  into  New  York  city  as  to  the  real  condition,  the 
true  position  of  the  Northern  army,  and  the  effect  of  the 
defeat  on  the  government  at  Washington.  A  great  crowd 
which,  because  of  its  anxiety  and  uncertainty,  threatened 
at  any  moment  to  become  a  mob,  gathered  in  front  of  the 
Astor  House.  General  Garfield  was  urged  to  try  to  quiet 
it.  Stepping  out  on  a  balcony,  he  stood  quietly,  with 
raised  hat,  till  the  crowd  of  men,  catching  sight  of  him 
one  after  another  and  hushing  their  neighbors  to  listen, 
were  still  enough  for  him  to  be  heard.  Then  he  said, 


THE  INCOMPLETE  IN   EXCITATION  339 

God  reigns,  and  the  Government  at  Washington  still 
ives,"  -  —  and  the  crisis  was  over.  Garfield's  words  had 
riven  the  anxious  crowd  just  the  information  it  craved,  — 
that  there  was  still  a  government  at  Washington ;  and  it 
lad  supplied  them  with  a  motive  for  action  of  the  highest 
dnd,  —  belief  that  the  outcome  must  be  for  the  best  even 
)hough  the  present  were  dark,  since  all  was  in  God's  hands. 
All  this  had  been  done  in  nine  words  because  Garfield 
mew  how  to  select  and  to  be  concrete. 

The  incomplete  in  excitation.  Both  vividness  and  brevity 
ire  sometimes  gained  by  leaving  a  description  incomplete 
}r  by  giving  only  just  enough  details  to  set  the  imagina- 
ions  of  the  audience  to  working.  This  is  very  effective 
f  -a  speaker  or  writer  is  sure  that  his  audience  will  fill  in 
,he  details  as  he  desires.  Otherwise  it  is  a  risky  method. 
Clearly  it  is  safer  for  the  speaker,  who  can  watch  the  faces 
>f  his  audience  and  see  whether  they  show  a  recognition  of 
;he  full  significance  of  the  incomplete  description,  the  few 
letails,  than  it  is  for  the  writer,  who  never  sees  his  audi- 
mce.  A  very  successful  use  of  this  method  is  shown  in 
,he  peroration  of  Lord  Erskine's  speech  in  behalf  of  Lord 
jreorge  Gordon.  Erskine  did  not  develop  any  appeals  to 
,he  emotions  of  his  hearers,  but  simply  suggested  to  their 
maginations  what  might  readily  be  developed  into  such 
Appeals.  He  knew  from  the  look  of  his  hearers  that  they 

ere  sufficiently  in  sympathy  with  him  for  their  imagina- 
ions  to  fill  out  his  suggestions.  His  evident  willingness 
o  waive  emotional  appeals  produced  in  the  jury  belief  in 
he  convincingness  of  his  proof.  His  method  also  forced 
he  jury  to  make  itself  responsible  for  any  part  that  their 
ympathies  might  have  in  the  verdict  given.  He  could 
3ay  that  he  had  busied  himself  only  with  what  rested  on 


340  PRESENTATION 

evidence  and  must  appeal  to  their  reason.     It  is  a  model 
of  restraint  and  of  suggestive  persuasion. 

I  may  now,  therefore,  relieve  you  from  the  pain  of  hearing 
me  any  longer,  and  be  myself  relieved  from  speaking  on  a 
subject  which  agitates  and  distresses  me.  Since  Lord  George 
Gordon  stands  clear  of  every  hostile  act  or  purpose  against 
the  Legislature  of  his  country,  or  the  properties  of  his  fellow- 
subjects —  since  the  whole  tenor  of  his  conduct  repels  the 
belief  of  the  traitorous  intention  charged  by  the  indictment  — 
my  task  is  finished.  I  shall  make  no  address  to  your  passions. 
I  will  not  remind  you  of  the  long  and  rigorous  imprisonment 
he  has  suffered ;  I  will  not  speak  to  you  of  his  great  youth,  of 
his  illustrious  birth,  and  of  his  uniformly  animated  and  gen- 
erous zeal  in  Parliament  for  the  Constitution  of  his  country. 
Such  topics  might  be  useful  in  the  balance  of  a  doubtful  case ; 
yet,  even  then,  I  should  have  trusted  to  the  honest  hearts  of 
Englishmen  to  have  felt  them  without  excitation.  At  present, 
the  plain  and  rigid  rules  of  justice  and  truth  are  sufficient  to 
entitle  me  to  your  verdict.1 

Summary  of  persuasion.  Persuasion  may,  then/ arise  from 
the  subject  itself  the  relation  to  it  of  speaker  or  audience, 
'  the  relation  of  speaker  to  audience',  and  from  pure  excita- 
tion. Suggestions  as  to  use  of  persuasion  arising  from 
each  of  these  sources  can  be  given,  but  they  must  always 
be  applied  under  the  guidance  of  common  sense  and  expe- 
rience. It  is  not  enough,  however,  as  was  pointed  out  in 
the  first  paragraph  of  this  chapter,  to  know  how  to  analyze 
a  case,  select  and  value  one's  evidence,  and  choose  one's 
means  of  persuasion:  one  must  also  be  able  so  to  clothe 
thought  and  feeling  in  words  as  to  get  from  one's.audience 
just  the  desired  response.  Evidently,  therefore,  none  of  the 
principles  of  rhetoric  which  concern  accurate,  interesting, 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  152-153. 


WORK  OF  THE  INTRODUCTION  IN  CONVICTION     341 

individual  expression  of  ideas  or  feelings  can  be  neg- 
lected by  a  student  of  argumentation.  Yet  this  essential 
part  of  argumentation,  the  rhetoric  of  argument,  is  often 
neglected  by  even  careful  students. 

SECTION^ —  THE  RHETORIC  OF  ARGUMENT 

Three  divisions  of  a  forensic.  Any  argument  may  consist 
of  three,  parts,  corresponding  to  the  three  parts  of  a  brief, 
though,  contrary  to  the  method  ip  briefs,  they  should  never 
be  so  designated  by  headings.  (^The  introduction  of  an 
argument  corresponds  to  the  brief  introduction£j;he  argu- 
ment itself  to  the  brief  proper|)and  the  peroration  to  the 
conclusion  of  the  brief. 

The  work  of  the  introduction  in  conviction.  The  work  of 
the  introduction  is  twofold/:  y  to  appeal  to  the  understand- 
ing—  to  convince;  and  to  appeal  to  interests,  prejudices, 
and  emotions  -^  to  persuade.  Its  work  in  conviction  is  so 
to  re-present  the  analysis  of  the  question  as  laid  down  in 
the  brief  as  to  give  a  reader  just  the  information  he  needs 
in  order  to  follow  the  argument  proper  understandingly, 
but  without  rigidity  of  form  or  baldness  of  phrase.—  Like 
the  introduction  to  the  brief,  it  should,  in  con viction^  phrase 
only  what  both  sides  must  admit  if  there  is  to  be  any  dis- 
cussiori^tlike  its  brief,  too,  it  will  give  only  as  many  of 
the  steps  in  analysis  —  phrasing  a  proposition,  defining  the 
terms  through  the  history  of  the  question,  and  finding  the 
special  issues  —  as  the  conditions  of  the  particular  question 
demand.  Evidently,  if  an  argument  rests  on  a  well-drawn 
brief,  it  cannot  open  up  a  question  vaguely.  But  another 
quality  in  an  introduction  is  essential :  it  should  have  the 
art  which  conceals  art.  A  reader  may  be  allowed  to  feel 


342  PRESENTATION 

that  good  analysis  must  underlie  the  swift  and  convincing 
outline  of  the  case  which  he  is  reading,  but  he  should  not 
be  allowed  to  recognize  each  step  as  it  is  taken,  least  of 
all  should  he  have  each  step  thrust  on  his  attention  as  it 
is  made.  It  is  the  business  of  the  introduction  to  sub- 
ordinate whatever  formal  processes  may  precede  it  to  a 
presentation  of  the  subject  so  vivid  as  to  make  that  sub- 
ject seem  vital,  or  even  momentous.1 

Persuasion  in  the  introduction.  Of  course,  the  chief  means 
in  producing  this  effect  comes  from  persuasion,  and  all  that 
has  been  said  in,  regard  to  the  significance  of  the  relation 
of  speaker  to  subject  and  of  audience  to  both  subject  and 
speaker  must  be  borne  in  mind  in  planning  one's  introduc- 
tion. Moreover,  clothing  in  words  the  ideas  selected  for 
conviction  and  persuasion  may  count  so  much  that  the 
rhetoric  of  argument  must  be  carefully  studied. 

The  proper  proportion  of  persuasion  to  conviction  in  the 
introduction  to  any  given  subject  must,  naturally,  depend 
on  the  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  relation  to  it  of  speaker 
and  audience.  The  proportion  may  vary  from  an  introduc- 
tion without  persuasion  —  something  rare  —  to  one  with 
persuasion  and  conviction  as  subtly  mingled  throughout  as 
they  are  in  Lord  Erskine's  Defense  of  Lord  G-eorge  Gordon. 
Common  sense  and  experience  are  the  only  sure  guides 
in  applying  to  the  conditions  of  the  case  in  question  the 
suggestions  as  to  persuasion  already  explained. 

The  argument  itself.  Like  the  introduction,  the  argument 
itself  may  do  twofold  work. U  /It  may  simply  convince  by 
giving  in  literary  form  the  evidence  for  which  the  care- 
fully constructed  brief  calll^or  it  may  persuade.  Important 

1  For  illustration  of  the  good  and  the  bad  qualities  of  an  introduction 
see  forensics  in  Appendix. 


THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  PERORATION        343 

pomts  to  remember  in  treating  the  argument  itself  are 
that  persuasion  and  conviction  need  not  be  given  sepa- 
rate sentences  and  paragraphs,  but  may  cooperate  within 
the  same  sentence  or  paragraph,  and  are  .most  effective 
when  they  are  but  warp  and  woof ;  that  th&lpersuasion  in 
the  different  parts  of  the  work  should  be  unified  for  a 
definite  purpose  f  and  that  an  argument  should  not  be 
a  bald  exposition  of  the  evidence  called  for  by  the  brief, 
but  should  have  special  interest  from  its  very  presentation 
of  this  evidence.  -  Essentials  of  the  argument  proper,  both 
in  persuasion  and  conviction,  are  clearness,  movement,  and 
force. 

The  importance  of  the  peroration.  Any  study  of  briefs 
should  make  clear  that  all  carefully  constructed  argument 
is  a  steady  preparation  for  the  peroration.  The  peroration, 
then,  is  to  an  argument  what  climax  is  to  a  story  or  the 
last  act  to  a  play:  its  ultimate  purpose  is  to  bring  the 
argument  to  a  full  and  perfect  close.  In  it  the  final 
impression  on  reader  or  hearer  is  to  be  made,  and  this 
should  be  as  vivid  an4  as  lasting  as  possible.  Its  \york 
also  is  twofold,  for  i^may  appeal  either  to  the  reasot^r 
the  emotional  side  of  an  audience.  Its  simplest  work  in 
conviction  is  that  called  for  by  the  conclusion  of  the  brief : 
recapitulation  of  the  argument.  It  may  advantageously 
emphasize  as  it  recapitulates,  and  here  the  power  of  phras- 
ing strikingly  or  of  repeating  an  idea  in  a  fresh  guise  is 
needed.  It  may  also  amplify  or  diminish,  that  is,  point  out 
the  importance  and  the  conclusiveness  of  the  proof  of  the 
speaker,  the  unimportance  of  whatever  in  an  opponent's  case 
still  stands,  or  the  inconclusiveness  of  his  proof  as  a  whole. 
To  do  one  or  more  of  these  things  as  conditions  require  is 
to  understand  the  work  of  conviction  in  the  peroration. 


344  PRESENTATION 

Recapitulation  only.  The  following  peroration  from  a 
forensic  on  "The  City  of  Utopia  should  adopt  a  School 
Commission  of  five  members  in  place  of  the  present  large 
School  Committee"  shows  good  recapitulation  but  misses 
chances  for  persuasion. 

The  demand  for  a  school  commission  is  not  of  recent  growth, 
but  is  the  result  of  a  growing  conviction  that  the  School  Com- 
mittee, as  has  been  shown,  has  not  taken  advantage  of  the 
opportunities  that  exist  for  increasing  the  value  of  the  edu- 
cational system  of  the  city.  We  have  pointed  out  that  the 
schools  have  not  received  the  proper  financial  support;  sala- 
ries of  teachers  and  janitors  are  too  low;  the  schoolhouses 
are  overcrowded,  and  children  are  being  turned  away  for  lack 
of  room ;  great  numbers  of  children  are  being  sent  out  from 
the  schools  badly  prepared  to  engage  in  life's  struggles ;  and 
the  schoolhouses  are  allowed  to  stand  unused  when  they  might 
be  used  as  instruments  of  social  service  to  the  community.  To 
abandon  the  old  system  of  ward  representation  under  which 
these  unfortunate  conditions  have  grown  up,  and  to  adopt  in 
its  place  a  highly  centralized  commission  elected  at  large,  with 
full  responsibility,  would  prepare  the  way  for  radical  reforms. 

The  commission  plan  would  substitute  for  the  present  inade- 
quate system  a  method  which  would  result  in  a  comprehensive 
and  definite  plan  of  school  development.  The  school  system 
would  be  treated  as  a  unit  instead  of  as  a  group  of  rival  ele- 
ments;  delays  due  to  conflict  of  authority  would  be  ended; 
responsibility  and  authority  would  be  fixed ;  business  would 
be  transacted  promptly  and  efficiently ;  and  the  schools  and 
their  equipment  would  be  developed  to  their  highest  value  to 
the  community.  Why,  then,  should  the  city  hesitate  to  make 
the  change  ? 

Amplifying  and  diminishing.  The  quotation  from  A 
Roman  Lawyer  in  Jerusalem  on  pp.  112-114  forms  the 
first  part  of  a  peroration  which  diminishes  by  showing  the 


AMPLIFYING  AND  DIMINISHING  345 

*A  JU*° 

^c^^ 

improbability  of  the  ordinary  view  of  Judas,  and  then 
amplifies  by  setting  forth  the  naturalness  of  the  poet's 
view  of  his  conduct.  Both  its  emphasis  and  phrasing  are 
skillful.  The  amplifying  portion  follows. 

But  take  the  other  view  that  Lysias  takes, 

All  is  at  once  consistent,  clear,  complete. 

Firm  in  the  faith  that  Christus  was  his  God, 

The  Great  Messiah  sent  to  save  the  world, 

He,  seeking  for  a  sign  —  not  for  himself, 

But  to  show  proof  to  all  that  he  was  God  — 

Conceived  this  plan,  rash  if  you  will,  but  grand. 

"  Thinking  him  man,"  he  said,  "  mere  mortal  man, 

They  seek  to  seize  him  —  I  will  make  pretence 

To  take  the  public  bribe  and  point  him  out, 

And  they  shall  go,  all  armed  with  swords  and  staves, 

Strong  with  the  power  of  law,  to  seize  on  him  — 

And  at  their  touch  lo,  God  himself  shall  stand 

Revealed  before  them,  and  their  swords  shall  drop : 

And  prostrate,  all  before  him  shall  adore, 

And  cry,  '  Behold  the  Lord  and  King  of  all ! '  " 

But  when  the  soldiers  laid  their  hands  on  him 

And  bound  him  as  they  would  a  prisoner  vile, 

With  taunts,  and  mockery,  and  threats  of  death  — 

He  all  the  while  submitting  —  then  his  dream 

Burst  into  fragments  with  a  crash  ;  aghast 

The  whole  world  reeled  before  him ;  the  dread  truth 

Swooped  like  a  sea  upon  him,  bearing  down 

His  thoughts  in  wild  confusion^    He  who  dreamed 

To  open  the  gates  of  glory  to  his  Lord, 

Opened  in  their  stead  the  prison's  jarring  door, 

And  saw  above  him  his  dim  dream  of  Love 

Change  to  a  Fury  stained  with  blood  and  crime. 

And  then  a  madness  seized  him,  and  remorse 

With  pangs  of  torture  drove  him  down  to  death. 


346  PRESENTATION 

The  persuasive  work  of  the  peroration.  The  peroration 
should,  too,  take  advantage  of  the  last  opportunity  to  win 
sympathy  for  subject  or  speaker  and  to  stir  the  emotions 
of  the  audience.  As  a  speaker  recapitulates,  he  may  relate 
his  cause  as  a  whole  or  in  its  subdivisions  to  habitudes, 
interests,  prejudices  of  his  hearers,  or  may  directly  appeal 
to  their  emotions.  In  any  case,  the  purpose  which  unifies 
the  persuasion  throughout  the  argument  should  be  made 
unmistakable  in  the  peroration.  In  all  the  cases  men- 
tioned in  treating  the  principles  of  persuasion  —  a  dull  or 
technical  subject,  an  audience  which  does  not  know  the 
speaker  or  is  hostile  to  him  or  his  subject,  etc.  —  the 
speaker  has  in  the  peroration  a  final  chance  for  concilia- 
tory work.  In  it-Jie  may  show  how  well  he  has  kept  his 
initial  promises^.iie  may  make  his  audience  see  that, 
though  the  subject  is  technical,  or  usually  dull  in  treat- 
ment, he  has  simplified  it  or  enlivened  it;j5  or  he  may 
reemphasize  that  the  subject  is  important  enough  to  repay 
his  hearers  for  the  close  attention  he  has  required';',, or  he 
can  make  his  audience  feel  that,  though  he  came  before 
them  unknown,  he  has  proved  his  right  to  speak  and  has 
shown  common  interests,  bonds  of  sympathy,  which  must 
prevent  any  further  hostility  to  him  or  his  subject.  It  is 
the  general  recognition  of  the  chance  the  peroration  offers 
for  appeals  to  the  emotions  which  has  led  Fourth  of  July 
orators  to  think  that  their  addresses  cannot  end  without 
a  "  spread-eagle  "  outburst  —  the  old  story  of  an  improper 
use  of  a  valuable  opportunity. 

Perorations  may  range,  of  course,  from  those  doing  only 
one  of  the  things  possible  in  a  peroration  to  others  which 
do  all.  No  rules  can  be  given  as  to  the  relative  amount 
of  conviction  and  persuasion  which  should  appear  in  any 


EMOTIONAL  APPEAL  347 


given  peroration  or  class  of  perorations,  for  the  amount 
must  depend  on  the  relation  of  speaker  to  subject  and 
audience,  of  audience  to  subject,  and  the  extent  of  the 
persuasion  in  the  other  two  divisions  of  the  argument. 
Once  more,  the  only  guide  must  be  common  sense  and 
experience. 

Emotional  Appeal.  The  closing  lines  of  the  Funeral  Ora- 
tion by  Hypereides  on  the  death  of  Leosthenes  and  his 
friends,  before  Lamia,  show  direct  appeal  to  the  emotions:  — 

It  is  hard,  perhaps,  to  comfort  those  who  are  in  such  a 
sorrow ;  grief  is  not  laid  to  rest  by  speech  or  by  observance  ; 
rather  is  it  for  the  nature  of  the  mourner,  and  the  nearness 
of  the  lost,  to  determine  the  boundaries  of  anguish.  Still,  we 
must  take  heart,  and  lighten  pain  as  we  may,  and  remember 
not  the  death  of  the  departed  but  the  good  name  also  that 
they  have  left  behind  them.  We  owe  not  tears  to  their  fate, 
but  rather  great  praises  to  their  deeds.  If  they  came  not  to 
old  age  among  men,  they  have  got  the  glory  that  never  grows 
old,  and  have  been  made  blessed  perfectly.  Those  among 
them  who  died  childless  shall  have  as  their  inheritors  the 
immortal  eulogies  of  Greece ;  and  those  of  them  who  have 
left  children  behind  them  have  bequeathed  a  trust  of  which 
their  country's  love  will  assume  the  guardianship.  More  than 
this,  —  if  to  die  is  to  be  as  though  we  -had  never  been,  then 
these  have  passed  away  from  sickness  and  pain  and  from  all 
the  accidents  of  the  earthly  life ;  or,  if  there  is  feeling  in  the 
under-world,  and  if,  as  we  conjecture,  the  care  of  the  Divine 
Power  is  over  it,  then  it  may  well  be  that  they  who  rendered 
aid  to  the  worship  of  the  gods  in  the  hour  of  its  imminent 
desolation  are  most  precious  to  that  Power's  providence.1 

Application  to  interests  and  emotional  appeal.  In  the 
peroration  of  the  speech  of  Lysias  Against  Eratosthenes 

l  Attic  Orators.    R.  C.  Jebb.    Vol.  II,  pp.  392,  393. 


348  PRESENTATION 

an  application  of  the  case  to  interests  of  different  parts 
of  the  audience  leads  to  an  emotional  appeal. 

I  wish,  before  I  go  down,  to  recall  a  few  things  to  the 
recollection  of  both  parties,  the  party  of  the  Town  and  the 
party  of  the  Peirseus ;  in  order  that,  in  passing  sentence,  you 
may  have  before  you  as  warnings  the  calamities  which  have 
come  upon  you  through  these  men. 

And  you,  first,  of  the  Town  —  reflect  that  under  their  iron 
rule  you  were  forced  to  wage  with  brothers,  with  sons,  with 
citizens,  a  war  of  such  a  sort  that,  having  been  vanquished, 
you  are  the  equals  of  the  conquerors,  whereas,  had  you  con- 
quered, you  would  have  been  the  slaves  of  the  Tyrants.  They 
would  have  gained  wealth  for  their  own  houses  from  the 
administration  ;  you  have  impoverished  yours  in  the  war  with 
one  another ;  for  they  did  not  deign  that  you  should  thrive 
along  with  them,  though  they  forced  you  to  become  odious 
in  their  company ;  such  being  their  consummate  arrogance 
that,  instead  of  seeking  to  win  your  loyalty  by  giving  you 
partnership  in  their  prizes,  they  fancied  themselves  friendly 
if  they  allowed  you  a  share  of  their  dishonours.  Now,  there- 
fore, that  you  are  in  security,  take  vengeance  to  the  utmost 
of  your  power  both  for  yourselves  and  for  the  men  of  the 
Peiraeus ;  reflecting  that  these  men,  villains  that  they  are,  were 
your  masters,  but  that  .now  good  men  are  your  fellow-citizens,— 
your  fellow-soldiers  against  the  enemy,  your  fellow-counsellors 
in  the  interest  of  the  State ;  remembering,  too,  those  allies 
whom  these  men  posted  on  the  acropolis  as  sentinels  over 
their  despotism  and  your  servitude.  To  you  —  though  much 
more  might  be  said  —  I  say  this  much  only. 

But  you  of  the  Peiraeus  —  think,  in  the  first  place,  of  your 
arms  —  think  how,  after  fighting  many  a  battle  on  foreign 
soil,  you  were  stripped  of  those  arms,  not  by  the  enemy,  but 
by  these  men  in  time  of  peace ;  think,  next,  how  you  were 
warned  by  public  criers  from  the  city  bequeathed  to  you  by 
your  fathers,  and  how  your  surrender  was  demanded  by  the 


INTERESTS  AND  EMOTIONAL  APPEAL  349 


cities  in  which  you  were  exiles.  Kesent  these  things  as  you 
resented  them  in  banishment;  and  recollect,  at  the  same  time, 
the  other  evils  that  you  have  suffered  at  their  hands ;  —  how 
some  were  snatched  out  of  the  market-place  or  from  temples 
and  put  to  a  violent  death ;  how  others  were  torn  from  chil- 
dren, parents,  or  wife,  and  forced  to  become  their  own  mur- 
derers, nor  allowed  the  common  decencies  of  burial,  by  men 
who  believed  their  own  empire  to  be  surer  than  the  vengeance 
from  on  high. 

And  you,  the  remnant  who  escaped  death,  after  perils  in 
many  places,  after  wanderings  to  many  cities  and  expulsion 
from  all,  beggared  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  parted  from 
children,  left  in  a  fatherland  which  was  hostile  or  in  the  land 
of  strangers,  came  through  many  obstacles  to  the  Peiraeus. 
Dangers  many  and  great  confronted  you;  but  you  proved 
yourselves  brave  men ;  you  freed  some,  you  restored  others 
to  their  country. 

Had  you  been  unfortunate  and  missed  those  aims,  you 
yourselves  would  now  be  exiles,  in  fear  of  suffering  what  you 
suffered  before.  Owing  to  the  character  of  these  men,  neither 
temples  nor  altars,  which  even  in  the  sight  of  evil-doers  have 
a  protecting  virtue,  would  have  availed  you  against  wrong ;  — 
while  those*  of  your  children  who  are  here  would  have  been 
enduring  the  outrages  of  these  men,  and  those  who  are  in 
a  foreign  land,  in  the  absence  of  all  succor,  would,  for  the 
smallest  debt,  have  been  enslaved. 

I  do  not  wish,  however,  to  speak  of  what  might  have  been, 
seeing  that  what  these  men  have  done  is  beyond  my  power  to 
tell;  and,  indeed,  it  is  a  task  not  for  one  accuser,  or  for  two, 
but  for  a  host. 

Yet  is  my  indignation  perfect  for  the  temples  which  these 
men  bartered  away  or  denied  by  entering  them ;  for  the  city 
which  they  humbled ;  for  the  arsenals  which  they  dismantled  5 
for  the  dead,  whom  you,  since  you  could  not  rescue  them 
alive,  must  vindicate  in  their  death.  And  I  think  that  they 
are  listening  to  us,  and  will  be  aware  of  you  when  you  give 


350  PRESENTATION 

your  verdict,  deeming  that  such  as  absolve  these  men  have 
passed  sentence  upon  them,  and  that  such  as  exact  retribution 
from  these  have  taken  vengeance  in  their  names. 

I  will  cease  accusing.  You  have  heard  —  seen  —  suffered  : 
you  have  them  :  judge.1 

Essentials  of  a  good  peroration.  To  make  a  good  perora- 
tion a  speaker  must  know  when  to  stop  and  how  to  stojp. 
To  know  how  to  stop  depends  on  avoidance  of  statements 
not  in  the  argument  proper,  clearness,  brevity,  and  a  skill 
which  can  provide  some  special  attractiveness  of  phrasing 
or  illustration. 

When  to  stop.  In  any  literary  work  to  know  when  to 
stop  is  essential  to  mastery.  Has  the  reader  never  heard 
a  story-teller  spoil  his  tale  because  after  its  climax  he  did 
not  know  when  to  stop,  or,  though  evidently  he  felt  that  he 
had  nothing  more  to  say,  did  not  know  how  to  end?  Has 
he  never  heard  an  after-dinner  speech,  which  began  well 
and  was  successful  for  some  minutes,  ultimately  become 
unendurable  because  the  speaker  did  not  know  when  and 
how  to  stop  ?  If  a  speaker  has  planned  his  case  carefully 
for  a  definite  audience,  and  as  he  speaks  is  in  touch  with 
it,  he  will  know  when  to  stop.  Not  knowing  when  to  stop 
results  from  ignorance /of  correct  principles  of  argumenta- 
tion, wrong  principles,  or  self-absorption.  Comparison  of 
the  closing  words  of  JEschines  and  Demosthenes  On  the 
Crown  gives  a  striking  example  of  the  difference  between 
a  peroration  in  which  the  speaker  knew  when  to  stop  and 
the  opposite.  "JEschines,  not  being  a  true  artist,  stands 
in  awe  of  his  art.  He  does  not  venture  to  be  original  and 
to  stop  at  his  real  climax.  He  must  needs  conform  with 
the  artistic  usage  of  a  formal  harmony;  and  he  mars  all. 

i  Attic  Orators.    R.  C.  Jebb.    Vol.  I,  pp.  185-188. 


WHEN  TO  STOP  351 

Demosthenes,  the  master,  can  make  his  art  obey  him. 
With  true  instinct,  he  feels  this  to  be  the  rare  case  which 
the  rule  does  not  fit.  The  emotions  of  his  hearers  have 
been  stirred  beyond  the  point  of  obedience  to  the  pulses 
of  an  ordered  music.  His  intense  appeal  to  the  memories 
of  his  countrymen  ends  in  a  storm  of  imprecation  and  of 
prayer." 

This  is  the  peroration  of  ^Eschines :  — 

Remember,  then,  that  the  city  whose  fate  rests  with  you  is 
no  alien  city,  but  your  own.  Give  the  prizes  of  ambition  by 
merit,  not  by  chance;  reserve  your  rewards  for  those  whose 
manhood  is  truer  and  whose  characters  are  worthier ;  look  at 
each  other  and  judge,  not  only  with  your  ears  but  with  your 
eyes,  who  of  your  number  are  likely  to  support  Demosthenes. 
His  youthful  companions  in  the  chase  or  gymnasium  ?  No,  by 
the  Olympian  Zeus  !  He  has  not  spent  his  life  in  hunting  or 
in  any  healthful  exercise,  but  in  cultivating  rhetoric  to,  be- 
used  against  men  of  property.  Think  of  his  boastfulness, 
when  he  claims,  by  his  embassy,  to  have  snatched  Byzantium 
out  of  the  hands  of  Philip,  to  have  thrown  the  Acarnanians 
into  revolt,  to  have  astonished  the  Thebans  with  his  harangue  ! 
He  thinks  that  you  have  reached  a  point  of  fatuity  at  which 
you  can  be  made  to  believe  even  this  —  as  if  your  fellow- 
citizen  were  the  Goddess  of  Persuasion,  instead  of  a  pettifog- 
ging mortal.  And  when,  at  the  end  of  his  speech,  he  calls  as 
his  advocates  those  who  shared  his  bribes,  imagine  that  you 
see  on  this  platform,  where  I  now  speak  before  you,  an  array 
drawn  up  to  confront  their  profligacy — the  benefactors  of 
Athens;  Solon,  who  ordered  the  democracy  by  his  glorious 
laws,  the  philosopher,  the  good  legislator,  entreating  you,  with 
that  gravity  which  so  well  became  him,  never  to  set  the 
rhetoric  of  Demosthenes  above  your  oaths  and  above  the  law ; 
Aristeides,  —  who  assessed  the  tribute  of  the  Confederacy, 
and  whose  daughters,  after  his  death,  were  dowered  by  the 


352  PRESENTATION 

State,  —  indignant  at  the  contumely  threatened  to  Justice, 
and  asking,  Are  you  not  ashamed?  When  Arthmios  of  Zeleia 
brought  Persian  gold  to  Greece,  and  visited  Athens,  our  fathers 
well-nigh  put  him  to  death,  though  he  was  our  public  guest,  and 
proclaimed  him  expelled  from  Athens,  and  from  all  territory 
that  the  Athenians  rule;  while  Demosthenes,  who  has  not  brought 
us  Persian  gold,  but  has  taken  bribes  for  himself,  and  has  kept 
them  to  this  day,  is  about  to  receive  a  golden  wreath  from  you  ! 
And  Themistocles,  and  they  who  died  at  Marathon  and 
Plataea,  ay,  and  the  very  graves  of  our  forefathers  —  do  you 
not  think  that  they  will  utter  a  voice  of  lamentation,  if  he 
who  covenants  with  barbarians  to  work  against  Greece  shall 
be  —  crowned  ? 

"  This  was  the  true  climax.  But  jEschines  felt  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Attic  rule.  He  must  not  end  thus.  The  storm 
must  be  laid  in  a  final  harmony.  And  so  he  passed  on  to 
the  most  tremendous  failure  that  ever  followed  so  close 
upon  a  triumph  " :  — 

0  Earth  and  Sunlight  !    0  ye  influences  of  Goodness,  of 
Intelligence,  of  that  Culture  by  which  we  learn  to  distinguish 
things  beautiful  or  shameful  —  /  have  done  my  duty,  I  have 
finished.    If  the  part  of  the  accuser  has  been  performed  well 
and  adequately  to  the  offense,  then  I  have  spoken  as  I  wished, 
—  if  defectively,  yet  I  have  spoken  as  I  could.    Judge  for 
yourselves  from  what  has  been  spoken  or  from  what  has  been 
left  unsaid,  and  give  your  sentence  in  accordance  with  justice 
and  with  the  interests  of  Athens.1 

This  is  the  peroration  of  Demosthenes :  — 

Here  is  the  proof.  Not  when  my  extradition  was  demanded, 
not  when  they  sought  to  arraign  me  before  the  Amphictyonic 
Council,  not  for  all  their  menaces  or  their  offers,  not  when 
they  set  these  villains  like  wild  beasts  upon  me,  have  I  ever 

1  Attic  Orators.   R.  C.  Jebb.    pp.  406-408.    Macmillan  &  Co.    1893. 


WHEN  TO  STOP  353 

been  untrue  to  the  loyalty  I  bear  you.  From  the  outset,  I 
chose  the  path  of  a  straightforward  and  righteous  statesman- 
ship, to  cherish  the  dignities,  the  prerogatives,  the  glories  of 
my  country:  to  exalt  them  :  to  stand  by  their  cause.  I  do  not 
go  about  the  market-place  radiant  with  joy  at  my  country's 
disasters,  holding  out  my  hand  and  telling  my  good  news  to 
any  one  who,  I  think,  is  likely  to  report  it  in  Macedon ;  I  do 
not  hear  of  my  country's  successes  with  a  shudder  and  a  groan, 
and  a  head  bent  to  earth,  like  the  bad  men  who  pull  Athens 
to  pieces,  as  if,  in  so  doing,  they  were  not  tearing  their  own 
reputations  to  shreds,  who  turn  their  faces  to  foreign  lands, 
and,  when  an  alien  has  triumphed  by  the  ruin  of  the  Greeks, 
give  their  praises  to  that  exploit,  and  vow  that  vigilance  must 
be  used  to  render  that  triumph  eternal. 

Never,  Powers  of  Heaven,  may  any  brow  of  the  Immortals 
be  bent  in  approval  of  that  prayer!  Eather,  if  it  may  be, 
breathe  even  into  these  men  a  better  mind  and  heart ;  but  if 
so  it  is  that  to  these  can  come  no  healing,  then  grant  that 
these,  and  these  alone,  may  perish  utterly  and  early  on  land 
and  on  the  deep :  and  to  us,  the  remnant,  send  the  swiftest 
deliverance  from  the  terrors  gathered  above  our  heads,  send 
us  the  salvation  that  stands  fast  perpetually. 

"  Two  thousand  years  have  challenged  a  tradition  which 
lives,  and  will  always  live,  wherever  there  is  left  a  sense 
for  the  grandest  music  which  an  exquisite  language  could 
yield  to  a  sublime  enthusiasm  —  that,  when  Demosthenes 
ceased,  those  who  had  come  from  all  parts  of  Greece  to 
hear,  that  day,  the  epitaph  of  the  freedom  which  they  had 
lost,  and  a  defence  of  the  honour  which  they  could  still 
leave  to  their  children,  had  listened  to  the  masterpiece  of 
the  old  world's  oratory,  perhaps  to  the  supreme  achieve- 
ment of  human  eloquence."1 

1  Attic  Orators.  K.  C.  Jebb.  Vol.  II,  pp.  416-418.  Macmillan  &  Co. 
1893. 


354  PRESENTATION 

How  to  stop.  When  failure  to  stop  at  the  right  point 
may  not  be  assigned  to  one  or  more  of  the  three  causes 
named  on  p.  350  it  comes,  not  because  a  speaker  does  not 
recognize  that  he  should  stop,  but  because  he  does  not 
know  how  to  close  his  work  effectively,  and  bunglingly 
tries  one  device  after  another. 

1.  Avoidance  of  statements  not  in  argument  itself.  Two 
errors  which  sometimes  appear  in  recapitulations  should 
be  studiously  avoided  —  particularly  in  extemporaneous 
work  or  when  speaking  from  slight  notes.  First,  a  speaker, 
in  summing  up  his  case,  brings  in  new  arguments.  He 
notices,  as  he  draws  his  case  to  a  close  that,  through  for- 
getfulness,  either  because  of  hasty  work  or  a  tendency  of 
mind,  one  or  two  arguments  he  meant  to  use  have  not 
been  treated.  He  tucks  them  in,  therefore,  at  the  last 
minute.  Doubtless,  if  they  are  needed,  it  is  better  for  the 
speaker  to  state  them  than  to  lose  them,  but  by  putting 
them  into  the  peroration  he  spoils  the  finish  of  his  work 
and  lays  himself  open  to  a  suspicion  of  careless  work- 
manship throughout  his  speech.  This  suspicion  may  make 
hearers  hesitate  to  trust  his  work  as  a  whole.  For  the 
writer  who  has  time  to  prepare  his  work  such  patching  up 
of  a  poor  job  at  its  end  is  inexcusable.  Any  need  for  such 
patching  shows  that  the  argument  is  incomplete.  The  need 
should  be  met  by  the  insertion  of  the  proof  in  question 
at  its  proper  place  in  the  forensic  or  speech. 

Secondly,  the  writer  or  speaker  may  refer  to  matters  as 
proveoTwhich  have  not  been  treated  at  all.  This  usually 
happens  through  inadvertence.  If  intentional,  it  is  unpar- 
donable. In  any  case  such  a  method  weakens  the  work, 
for  a  reader  will  adjudge  the  writer  or  speaker  careless  01 
untrustworthy,  and  either  judgment  is  undesirable. 


BREVITY  355 

2.  Clearness.   Above  all,  let  a  peroration  be  clear.    Avoid 
any  confusion  in  stating  what  has  been  proved  true  or  false. 
Do  not  jumble  the  order  of  the  parts  of  the  work  in  renam- 
ing them.    Do  not  refer  vaguely  to  what  has  been  proved, 
as  does  this  peroration,  especially  in  the  words  "his  own 
theory  of  criticism." 

I  have  now  shown  that  Mr.  Howells  is  not  justified  in  his 
criticism  of  Balzac  because  he  has  failed  to  measure  and 
explain  him  on  his  own  theory  of  criticism  and  also  because 
his  criterion  does  not  recognize  the  ideal  in  art,  the  "  principle 
of  subordination  by  which  to  assign  rank  to  the  'diverse  pro- 
ductions of  art." 

What  a  speaker  endeavors  in  his  peroration  to  give  his 
hearer  may  be  compared  to  a  map  of  the  country  through 
which  the  latter  has  traveled,  with  red  lines  under  the 
places  that  should  be  particularly  remembered ;  or  a  formula 
so  simple  and  so  carefully  emphasized  that  it  and  its  sig- 
nification must  indelibly  impress  themselves  on  a  hearer's 
mind.  Therefore,  summarize  with  the  detail  requisite  to 
this  end,  but  avoid  a  multiplicity  of  details  that  merely 
bewilders.1  Above  all,  then,  a  peroration  must  be  clear  — 
in  thought,  in  construction,  and  in  phrasing.2 

3.  Brevity.   With  college  students  as  yet  untrained  in 
argumentation  a  favorite  ending  for  a  forensic  is :  "  Here, 
then,  are  my  arguments.     I  think,  therefore,  that  I  have 
proved  my  case."    This  is  given  without  any  recapitulation 
of  the  arguments  stated  in  the  forensic.     Such  work  is  too 
much  like  that  of  an  old  minister  who  always  preached 
just    an    hour,   with    his   watch    lying   open  before   him. 

1  For  this  dangerous  multiplicity  of  detail  see  the  peroration  of  Sii 
P.  Sidney,  p.  357. 

2  For  good  perorations  see  pp.  345,  347,  348,  352-353. 


356  PRESENTATION 

When  he  saw  the  hour  was  past,  no  matter  where  he 
happened  to  be  in  his  discourse,  he  broke  off,  saying: 
"  Brethren,  the  hour  is  up.  Let  us  pray." 1  What  must 
have  been  the  final  impression  left  by  these  edifying  dis- 
courses !  There  is  such  a  thing,  then,  as  too  great  brevity 
in  a  peroration,  but  a  student  should  aim  to  accomplish, 
as  briefly  as  he  can,  those  portions  of  the  possible  work  of 
a  peroration  which  the  conditions  of  his  subject  seem  to 
demand.  A  clear,  forcible,  final  impression  is  what  he  is 
trying  to  leave,  and  a  lengthy  peroration  —  i.e.  one  con- 
taining many  new  matters  for  thought  or  long  involved 
statements  of  what  has  been  shown  to  be  true — is  liable 
to  defeat  its  own  end. 

The  fact  that  the  conditions  under  which  the  speech  is 
given  must  determine  the  length  of  the  peroration  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  end  of  Oliver  Cromwell's  speech  in  dis- 
solving the  First  Protectorate  Parliament. 

I  have  troubled  you  with  a  long  speech ;  and  I  believe  it 
may  not  have  the  same  resentment  with  all  that  it  hath  with 
some.  But  because  that  is  unknown  to  me,  I  shall  leave  it  to 
God  ;  —  and  conclude  with  this  :  That  I  think  myself  bound, 
as  in  my  duty  to  God,  and  to  the  People  of  these  Nations  for 
their  safety  and  good  in  every  respect,  —  I  think  it  my  duty 
to  tell  you  that  it  is  not  for  the  profit  of  these  Nations,  nor  for 
common  and  public  good,  for  you  to  continue  here  any  longer. 
And  therefore  I  do  declare  unto  you,  That  I  do  dissolve  this 
Parliament.2 

In  itself  this  seems  abrupt,  but  if  a  reader  studies  the 
speech  itself,  he  will  see  that  the  peroration  is  fitting.  It 
emphasizes,  by  its  neglect  of  any  careful  summary  of  the 

1  The  Theory  of  Preaching.    Phelps.    p.  522.    C.  Scribner's  Sons.    1893. 

2  Political  Orations.     Camelot  Series,    p.  39. 


BREVITY  357 

arguments,  any  application  of  them  to  the  audience,  any 
elaborate  appeal  to  the  emotions,  Cromwell's  contempt  for 
his  hearers,  his  determination  to  carry  things  with  a  high 
hand,  and  his  belief  that  he  was  acting  as  a  divine  agent. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  length  and  the  detail  of  Sir  Philip 
Sidney's  final  summary  in  The  Defense  of  Poesy  defeats 
the  very  end  for  which  the  peroration  exists  —  to  leave  a 
clear  and  forcible  final  impression  on  the  reader :  — 

So  that  since  the  ever  praiseworthy  poesy  is  full  of  virtue- 
breeding  delightfulness,  and  void  of  no  gift  that  ought  to  be 
in  the  noble  name  of  learning ;  since  the  blames  laid  against 
it  are  either  false  or  feeble;  since  the  cause  why  it  is  not 
esteemed  in  England  is  the  fault  of  poet-apes,  not  poets; 
since,  lastly,  our  tongue*  is  most  fit  to  honor  poesy,  and  to  be 
honored  by  poesy;  I  conjure  you  all  that  have  had  the  evil 
luck  to  read  this  ink-wasting  toy  of  mine,  even  in  the  name 
of  the  Nine  Muses,  no  more  to  scorn  the  sacred  mysteries  of 
poesy ;  no  more  to  laugh  at  the  name  of  poets,  as  though  they 
were  next  inheritors  to  fools;  no  more  to  jest  at  the  reverend 
title  of  "a  rimer";  tut  to  believe,  with  Aristotle,  that  they 
were  the  ancient  treasurers  of  the  Grecians'  divinity ;  to  be- 
lieve, with  Bembus,  that  they  were  the  first  bringers-in  of 
all  civility ;  to  believe,  with  Scaliger,  that  no  philosopher's 
precepts  can  sooner  make  you  an  honest  man  than  the  read- 
ing of  Virgil;  to  believe,  with  Clauserus,  the  translator  of 
Cornutus,  that  it  pleased  the  Heavenly  Deity  by  Hesiod  and 
Homer,  under  the  veil  of  fables,  to  give  us  all  knowledge, 
logic,  rhetoric,  philosophy  natural  and  moral,  and  quid  non? 
to  believe,  with  me,  that  there  are  many  mysteries  contained 
in  poetry,  which  of  purpose  were  written  darkly,  lest  by  pro- 
fane wits  it  should  be  abused;  to  believe,  with  Landino,  that 
they  are  so  beloved  of  the  gods,  that  whatsoever  they  write 
proceeds  of  a  divine  fury;  lastly,  to  believe  themselves,  when 
they  tell  you  they  will  make  you  immortal  by  their  verses. 


358  PRESENTATION 

Thus  doing,  you  shall  be  most  fair,  most  rich,  most  wise,  most 
all ;  you  shall  dwell  upon  superlatives.  Thus  doing,  though 
you  be  libertino  patre  natus,  you  shall  suddenly  grow  Herculea 
proles,  si  quid  mea  carmina  possunt.  Thus  doing,  your  soul 
shall  be  placed  with  Dante's  Beatrice  or  Virgil's  Anchises. 

But  if  —  fie  of  such  a  but !  —  you  be  born  so  near  the  dull- 
making  cataract  of  Nilus,  that  you  cannot  hear  the  planet-like 
music  of  poetry ;  if  you  have  so  earth-creeping  a  mind  that  it 
cannot  lift  itself  up  to  look  to  the  sky  of  poetry,  or  rather,  by 
a  certain  rustical  disdain  will  become  such  a  mome  as  to  be 
a  Momus  of  poetry ;  then,  though  I  will  not  wish  unto  you 
the  ass's  ears  of  Midas,  nor  to  be  driven  by  a  poet's  verses,  as 
Bubonax  was,  to  hang  himself,  nor  to  be  rimed  to  death,  as  is 
said  to  be  done  in  Ireland ;  yet  thus  much  curse  I  must  send 
you  on  the  behalf  of  all  poets  :  —  that  while  you  live  you  live 
in  love,  and  never  get  favor  for  lacking  skill  of  a  sonnet ;  and 
when  you  die,  your  memory  die  from  the  earth  for  want  of 
an  epitaph.1 

4.  Ease.  A  peroration  which  does  not  end  abruptly  and 
which  avoids  spread-eagle  oratory  wil^  to  at  least  a  slight 
degree,  possess  another  desirable  quality  in  perorations,  — 
ease.  Moreover,  when  the  summary  must  be  only  a  final 
repetition  of  ideas  often  stated  as  the  argument  has  de- 
veloped, it  will  give  desirable  ease  to  vary  its  phrasing. 
Whether  the  elegance  which  grace  of  thought  and  of  style 
may  give  should  be  sought  for  in  a  peroration  evidently 
depends  on  the  relation  of  speaker  and  audience  to  the 
subject.  As  was  noted  in  treating  persuasion,  p.  298,  there 
are  cases  in  which  elegance  may  create  a  suspicion  of  the 
speaker's  sincerity,  because  it  makes  him  seem  more  inter- 
ested in  manner  than  in  matter,  but,  on  the  other  hand, 

1  Defense  of  Poesy.  Sir  P.  Sidney.  A.  S.  Cook,  ed.  pp.  67-58. 
Ginn  &  Company.  1890. 


AVOIDANCE  OF   FORMALISM  AND  RIGIDITY     359 

elegance  throughout  the  address  is  expected  from  Phi  Beta 
Kappa  and  Commencement  orators.  The  illustration  which 
at  once  occurs  to  any  student  of  American  oratory  is  the 
oratory  of  George  William  Curtis.  The  elegance  of  his 
thought  and  style  made  a  chief  part  of  the  enjoyment  his 
work  gave.  Through  consideration  of  the  principles  of 
persuasion,  then,  a  student  may  best  decide  whether  he 
should  give  a  particular  peroration  more  than  the  rudi- 
mentary ease  which  comes  from  avoidance  of  abruptness 
*tnd  bombast  and  from  freshness  of  phrase. 

Four  rhetorical  essentials  in  argumentation.  A  student 
should  never  forget  that  though  an  argument  is,  in  a  sense, 
but  an  expansion  of  his  brief,  it  is  not  any  kind  of  expan- 
sion, but  an  expansion  fitted  to  the  needs  and  the  inter- 
ests of  a  particular  audience  or  group  of  readers.  All  that 
can  prevent  a  student  who  understands  the  principles  of 
evidence  and  refutation  from  developing  a  good  brief  into 
a  good  argument  is  laziness,  or  inability  to  phrase  clearly 
and  forcibly  and  to  give  movement  and  literary  finish  to 
his  work.  But  few  students  recognize  the  essentiality  of 
movement  in  argument,  that  is,  grasping  and  emphasizing 
one's  .work  so  that  the  drift  and  the  purpose  not  only  of 
the  whole  but  of  each  division  are  clear  as  it  develops. 
Practically  no  beginner  sees  the  great  importance  of  liter- 
ary finish.  Yet  argumentation  is  not  a  mere  working  out 
of  logical  processes  apart  from  rhetoric  :  it  is  a  form  of 
exposition  which  demands,  as  much  as  any  other,  skilled 
rhetorical  treatment. 

ej^  Avoidance  of  formalism  and  rigidity.  The  task  of  him 
who  argues  is  to- "make  the  option  between  two  hypotheses 
forced,  living,  and  momentous."  Consequently,  the  work 
must  above  all  be  interesting,  and  nothing  more  destroys 


360  PKESENTATION 

interest  than  a  rigid  and  formal  treatment.  For  instance, 
the  relation  of  the  brief  to  the  forensic  should  be  that  of 
the  scaffolding  to  the  completed  building.  The  scaffolding 
must  precede,  of  course,  but  entirely  disappears  when  the 
structure  is  completed.  Doubtless  a  skilled  worker  in 
argument  may  discern  the  brief  which  underlies  a  finished 
argument,  just  as  a  competent  builder  can  tell  what  kind 
of  scaffolding  must  have  preceded  a  building,  but  the  brief 
should  not  protrude  in  the  forensic.  Yet,  with  beginners, 
forensics  are  too  often  but  mere  repetitions  of  the  brief, 
with  all  their  bareness  of  phrasing  and  even  their  lettering 
and  numbering.  Or,  though  letters  and  numbers  have 
disappeared,  the  restatement  of  the  brief  is  so  bald  that 
none  of  its  rigidity  is  lost.  Beginners  do  not  understand, 
also,  that  the  rule  given  for  the  argumentative  part  of  the 
brief,  that  the  proposition  should  always  precede  the  proof, 
does  not  hold  rigidly  for  the  forensic.  Such  rigidity  is 
necessary  in  the  brief  in  order  that  any  one  examining  it 
may,  with'least  time  and  trouble,  see  just  what  is  proved, 
and  how ;  but  what  was  said  on  p.  312  as  to  the  occasional 
desirability  of  withholding  from  an  audience  at  the  outset 
the  exact  purpose  or  conclusion  of  a  speaker  may  apply 
equally  to  the  conclusion  involved  in  any  division  of  his 
case.  If,  therefore,  anything  is  likely  to  be  gained  by 
leading  up  step  by  step  to  a  proposition  that  is  revealed 
only  as  the  speaker  turns  into  a  new  paragraph  or  division 
of  his  work,  the  order  of  proof  proposition  may  be  used  in 
the  forensic.  What  determines  the  better  order  in  any 
given  case  is,  of  course,  the  relation  of  audience  to  speaker 
and  subject.  Sometimes,  too,  even  a  student  who  has  got 
rid  of  the  hardness  of  the  brief  style,  wishing  to  save  labor, 
refers  from  his  forensic  to  evidence  which  he  has  given 


AVOIDANCE   OF  FORMALISM  AND  RIGIDITY     361 

fully  in  his  brief.  He  should  remember  that  brief  and 
argument  are  distinct,  even  if  related,  pieces  of  work.  The 
formal  processes  by  which  the  thought  is  made  effective 
are  not  what  interests  a  reader,  but  the  thought  itself.  To 
forget  this,  showing  each  formal  step  as  it  is  made,  not 
only  produces  repellent  rigidity,  but  may  make  the  writer 
ridiculous.  Sixty  years  ago  there  was  a  French  Huguenot 
preacher  in  New  York  who  modeled  his  sermons  exactly 
after  the  pattern  laid  down  in  Claude's  Essay  on  Preach- 
ing. Usually  he  preached  in  French,  but  when  he  resorted 
to  English  the  effect  was  irresistible.  He  not  only  built 
his  discourse  upon  a  set  plan,  but  was  careful  to  have 
the  fact  known  and  appreciated.  To  that  end,  he  an- 
nounced in  turn  each  of  its  divisions.  "  Now  we  have  de 
oration,"  he  would  say  gravely;  and  then  "Now  we  have 
de  peroration."  His  masterpiece  of  effectiveness  was  exhib- 
ited when,  with  a  befittingly  solemn  face,  he  gave  out  the 
thrilling  announcement,  "  And  now,  my  friends,  we  come 
to  de  pa-tet-ic." 

On  the  other  hand,  when  it  is  clear  that  the  develop- 
ment of  a  subject,  because  of  its  technicality,  its  length, 
or  intentional  confusion  by  an  opponent,  will  be  hard  to 
follow,  it  is  sometimes  wise  to  give  at  the  end  of  the  intro- 
duction a  rapid  outline  of  the  case  or  of  the  treatment 
planned.  Such  an  outline  of  the  country  to  be  traversed 
will  keep  the  way  clear  as  the  reader  moves.  It  may  even 
be  indispensable  in  showing  that  a  different  ordering  of  the 
ideas  which  a  writer  wishes  to  use  is  justifiable.  Mans- 
field uses  an  outline  at  the  beginning  of  his  speech  in 
behalf  of  Allan  Evans  both  to  clarify  a  case  which  will- 
fully had  been  much  confused  and  to  serve  as  a  guide 
to  his  hearers. 


362  PRESENTATION 

In  every  view  in  which  I  have  been  able  to  consider  this 
matter,  I  think  this  action  cannot  be  supported. 

If  they  rely  on  the  Corporation  Act ;  by  the  literal  and 
express  provision  of  that  act,  no  person  can  be  elected  who 
hath  not  within  a  year  taken  the  sacrament  in  the  Church 
of  England.  The  defendant  hath  not  taken  the  sacrament 
within  a  year ;  he  is  not,  therefore,  elected.  Here  they  fail 

If  they  ground  it  on  the  general  design  of  the  Legislature 
in  passing  the  Corporation  Act ;  the  design  was  to  exclude 
Dissenters  from  office,  and  disable  them  from  serving.  For, 
in  those  times,  when  a  spirit  of  intolerance  prevailed,  and 
severe  measures  were  pursued,  the  Dissenters  were  reputed  and 
treated  as  persons  ill-affected  and  dangerous  to  the  govern- 
ment. The  defendant,  therefore,  a  Dissenter,  and  in  the  eye 
of  this  law  a  person  dangerous  and  ill-affected,  is  excluded 
from  office,  and  disabled  from  serving.  Here  they  fail. 

If  they  ground  the  action  on  their  own  by-law ;  that  by-law 
was  professedly  made  to  procure  fit  and  able  persons  to  serve 
the  office,  and  the  defendant  is  not  fit  and  able,  being  expressly 
disabled  by  statute  law.  Here,  too,  they  fail. 

If  they  ground  it  on  his  disability's  being  owing  to  a  neglect 
of  taking  the  sacrament  at  church,  when  he  ought  to  have 
done  it,  the  Toleration  Act  having  freed  the  Dissenters  from 
all  obligation  to  take  the  sacrament  at  church,  the  defendant 
is  guilty  of  no  neglect  —  no  criminal  neglect.  Here,  therefore, 
they  fail.1 

There  are,  of  course,  instances  in  which  the  intricacy  of 
a  case  or  its  essentially  formal  character  justify  placing 
numerals  or  letters  before  each  division,  but  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  these  are  the  exception,  and  that  the  formal 
markings  are  used,  not  to  repeat  the  brief,  but  as  a  last 
necessary  touch  in  producing  perfect  clearness  in  the 
forensic.  The  essential  distinction  here  is  that  formalism 

1  Defense  of  Allan  Evans,    pp.  24-25.    Specimens  of  Argumentation. 


CLEARNESS  363 

for  its  own  sake  is  bad,  but  used  occasionally,  apart  from 
the  brief,  as  an  indispensable  means  to  clearness  is  even 
desirable. 

2.  Clearness.  "  Does  this  method  or  phrase  conduce  to 
clearness?"  is  evidently  one  of  the  tests  by  which  a  stu- 
dent of  argumentation  may  guide  himself.  First  of  all,  he 
should  fit  his  phrasing  of  his  subject  to  the  knowledge  of 
it  possessed  by  his  audience.  If  he  be  a  specialist  address- 
ing specialists  he  may  write  as  follows :  — 

At  Salem  Neck  the  excursion  will  visit  the  outcrops  of 
Essexite,  a  petrographic  type  of  great  importance,  which  is 
here  cut  by  younger  masses  of  augite  and  elaeolite  syenite. 
These  rocks  are  traversed  by  a  series  of  gabbro  dikes  and  by  a 
still  younger  series  of  tinguaites  which  cut  all  the  older  for- 
mations. Thence  proceeding  to  Marblehead  Neck,  granitite 
will  be  seen  intrusive  through  the  Cambrian  rocks,  the  kera- 
tophite  sheet  overlaying  the  old  rhyolites,  and  finally  the 
more  recent  quartz  porphyry  dikes. 

If,  however,  he  is  addressing  any  audience  of  people  less 
well  informed  than  himself,  he  must  never  forget  that  the 
answer  to  the  question,  "  How  concrete  must  I  be  at  this 
point?"  lies,  not  in  what  is  clear  to  him  or  in  what  he 
thinks  ought  to  be  clear  to  his  audience,  but  in  what  he 
can  ascertain  that  they  know  on  the  particular  matter.  If 
he  does  not  keep  this  distinction  in  mind  he  will  fall  into 
the  obscurity  which  often  makes  the  work  of  the  specialist 
too  difficult  for  the  general  public.  The  words  of  Sir 
Kenelm  Digby  should  be  a  constant  warning  to  him. 

"  For  besides  what  faylings  may  be  in  the  matter,  I  can- 
not doubt  but  that  even  in  the  expressions  of  it,  there 
must  often  be  great  obscurity  and  shortnesse  ;  which,  I, 
who  have  my  thoughts  filled  with  the  things  themselves, 


364  PRESENTATION 

am  not  aware  of.  So  that,  what  peradventure  may  seem 
very  full  to  me,  because  every  imperfect  touch  bringeth 
into  my  mind  the  entire  notion  and  the  whole  chain  of  cir- 
cumstances belonging  to  that  thing  I  have  so  often  beaten 
upon,  may  appear  very  crude  and  maymed  to  a  stranger, 
that  cannot  guesse  what  I  would  be  at,  otherwise  than  as 
my  direct  words  do  lead  him."  l 

Concreteness.  Especially  in  presenting  evidence,  work 
concretely.  Avoid  generalizations  not  based  on  illustra- 
tions immediately  preceding  or  following.  Avoid,  too, 
abstract  statements  not  promptly  made  concrete.  A  stu- 
dent of  argumentation  should  carefully  consider  all  the  rhe- 
torical devices  which  make  for  clearness,  —  illustration, 
description,  narration,  epigram,  characterization,  metaphor, 
and  simile.  Huxley  was  not  content  to  state  abstractly 
the  three  possible  theories  of  creation,  but  paused  to  illus- 
trate concretely  the  supposed  working  of  each.2  Macaulay 
carefully  followed  up  the  generalizing  of  the  first  three 
sentences  of  the  following  extract  with  numerous  and 
varied  instances  which  justify  his  statements. 

The  deficiency  of  the  natural  demand  for  literature  was, 
at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  and  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  more  than  made  up  by  artificial  encourage- 
ment, by  a  vast  system  of  bounties  and  premiums.  There 
was,  perhaps,  never  a  time  at  which  the  rewards  of  literary 
merit  were  so  splendid,  at  which  men  who  could  write  well 
found  such  easy  admittance  into  the  most  distinguished 
society,  and  to  the  highest  honors  of  the  State.  The  chiefs 
of  both  the  great  parties  into  which  the  kingdom  was  divided 

1  Quoted  in  Literary  Essays.    J.  R.  Lowell.    Vol.  I,  p.  vi.    Houghton, 
Mifflin  &  Co.    1890. 

2  Specimens  of  Argumentation,    pp.  64-69. 


ILLUSTRATION"  365 

patronized  literature  with  emulous  munificence.  Congreve, 
when  he  had  scarcely  attained  his  majority,  was  rewarded  for 
his  first  comedy  with  places  which  made  him  independent 
for  life.  Smith,  though  his  Hippolytus  and  Phcedra  failed, 
would  have  been  consoled  with  three  hundred  a  year  but  for 
his  own  folly.  Rowe  was  not  only  poet-laureate,  but  also  land 
surveyor  of  the  customs  in  the  port  of  London,  clerk  of  the 
council  to  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  secretary  of  the  Presen- 
tations to  the  Lord  Chancellor.  Hughes  was  secretary  to  the 
Commissions  of  the  Peace.  Ambrose  Philips  was  Judge  of 
the  Prerogative  Court  in  Ireland.  Locke  was  Commissioner  of 
Appeals  and  of  the  Board  of  Trade.  Newton  was  Master 
of  the  Mint.  Stepney  and  Prior  were  employed  in  embassies 
of  high  dignity  and  importance.  Gay,  who  commenced  life 
as  an  apprentice  to  a  silk  mercer,  became  a  secretary  of  lega- 
tion at  five-and-twenty.  It  was  to  a  poem  on  the  Death  of 
Charles  the  Second,  and  to  the  City  and  Country  Mouse,  that 
Montague  owed  his  introduction  into  public  life,  his  earldom, 
his  garter,  and  his  auditorship  of  the  exchequer.  Swift,  but 
for  the  unconquerable  prejudice  of  the  queen,  would  have  been 
a  bishop.  Oxford,  with  his  white  staff  in  his  hand,  passed 
through  the  crowd  of  his  suitors  to  welcome  Parnell,  when 
that  ingenious  writer  deserted  the  Whigs.  Steele  was  a  com- 
missioner of  stamps  and  a  member  of  Parliament.  Arthur 
Mainwaring  was  a  commissioner  of  the  customs,  and  auditor 
of  the  imprest.  Tickell  was  secretary  to  the  Lords  Justices 
of  Ireland.  Addison  was  Secretary  of  State.1 

Illustration.  R.  L.  Stevenson,  early  in  his  stinging 
reply  to  Dr.  Hyde's  attack  on  Father  Damien,  Roman 
Catholic  missionary  among  the  lepers,  by  illustration 
made  clear  his  point  that  everyday  honor  should  have 
restrained  Dr.  Hyde. 

1  Essays  on  Crofter's  BosweWs  Johnson,  pp.  353,  354.  H.  Holt  & 
Co.  1893.  I 


366  PRESENTATION 

Common  honour ;  not  the  honour  of  having  done  anything 
right,  but  the  honour  of  not  having  done  aught  conspicuously 
foul ;  the  honour  of  the  inert ;  .that  was  what  remained  to  you. 
.  .  .  But  will  a  gentleman  of  your  reverend  profession  allow 
me  an  example  from  the  fields  of  gallantry  ?  When  two  gen- 
tlemen compete  for  the  favour  of  a  lady,  and  the  one  succeeds 
and  the  other  is  rejected,  and  (as  will  sometimes  happen) 
matter  damaging  to  the  successful  rival's  credit  reaches  the 
ear  of  the  defeated,  it  is  held  by  plain  men  of  no  pretensions 
that  his  mouth  is,  in  the  circumstance,  almost  necessarily 
closed.  Your  church  and  Damien's  were  in  Hawaii  upon  a 
rivalry  to  do  well :  to  help,  to  edify,  to  set  divine  examples. 
You  having  (in  one  huge  instance)  failed,  and  Damien  suc- 
ceeded, I  marvel  it  should  not  have  occurred  to  you  that  you 
were  doomed  to  silence ;  that  when  you  had  been  outstripped 
in  that  high  rivalry  and  sat  ingloriously  in  the  midst  of  your 
well-being,  in  your  pleasant  room  —and  Damien,  crowned 
with  glories  and  honours,  toiled  and  rotted  in  that  pigstye  of 
his  under  the  cliffs  of  Kalawao  —  you,  the  elect  who  would 
not,  were  the  last  man  on  earth  to  collect  and  propagate 
gossip  on  the  volunteer  who  would  and  did.1 

Description.  H.  W.  Grady  in  his  famous  after-dinner 
speech  on  The  New  South  used  description  as  one  means 
of  making  clear  the  growth  of  the  South. 

Dr.  Talmage  has  drawn  for  you,  with  a  master  hand,  the 
picture  of  your  returning  armies.  He  has  told  you  how,  in 
the  pomp  and  circumstance  of  war,  they  came  back  to  you, 
marching  with  proud  and  victorious  tread,  reading  their  glory 
in  a  nation's  eyes  !  Will  you  bear  with  me  while  I  tell  you 
of  another  army  that  sought  its  home  at  the  close  of  the  late 
war?  An  army  that  marched  home  in  defeat  and  not  in 
victory  —  in  pathos  and  not  in  splendor,  but  in  glory  that 

1  Father  Damien.  R.  L.  Stevenson,  pp.  11-12.  Chatto  &  Windus. 
1880. 


DESCRIPTION  367 

equaled  yours,  and  to  hearts  as  loving  as  ever  welcomed 
heroes  home.  Let  me  picture  to  you  the  footsore  Confederate 
soldier,  as,  buttoning  up  in  his  faded  gray  jacket  the  parole 
which  was  to  bear  testimony  to  his  children  of  his  fidelity 
and  faith,  he  turned  his  face  southward  from  Appomattox  in 
April,  1865.  Think  of  him  as  ragged,  half-starved,  heavy- 
hearted,  enfeebled  by  want  and  wounds ;  having  fought  to 
exhaustion,  he  surrenders  his  gun,  wrings  the  hands  of  his 
comrades  in  silence,  and,  lifting  his  tear-stained  and  pallid 
face  for  the  last  time  to  the  graves  that  dot  the  old  Virginia 
hills,  pulls  his  gray  cap  over  his  brow  and  begins  the  slow 
and  painful  journey.  What  does  he  find? — let  me  ask  you 
who  went  to  your  homes  eager  to  find,  in  the  welcome  you 
had  justly  earned,  full  payment  for  four  years'  sacrifice  — 
what  does  he  find  when,  having  followed  the  battle-stained 
cross  against  overwhelming  odds,  dreading  death  not  half  so 
much  as  surrender,  he  reaches  the  home  he  left  so  prosperous 
and  beautiful?  He  finds  his  house  in  ruins,  his  farm  devas- 
tated, his  slaves  free,  his  stock  killed,  his  barn  empty,  his 
trade  destroyed,  his  money  worthless  ;  his  social  system,  feudal 
in  its  magnificence,  swept  away;  his  people  without  law  or 
legal  status  ;  his  comrades  slain,  and  the  burdens  of  others 
heavy  on  his  shoulders.  Crushed  by  defeat,  his  very  tradi- 
tions gone ;  without  money,  credit,  employment,  material 
training;  and  besides  all  this,  confronted  with  the  gravest 
problem  that  ever  met  human  intelligence  —  the  establishing 
of  a  status  for  the  vast  body  of  his  liberated  slaves. 

What  does  he  do  —  this  hero  in  gray,  with  a  heart  of  gold  ? 
Does  he  sit  down  in  sullenness  and  despair?  Not  for  a  day. 
Surely  God,  who  had  stripped  him  of  his  prosperity,  inspired 
him  in  his  adversity.  As  ruin  was  never  before  so  overwhelm- 
ing, never  was  restoration  swifter.  The  soldier  stepped  from 
the  trenches  into  the  furrow;  horses  that  had  charged  Federal 
guns  marched  before  the  plow,  and  the  fields  that  ran  red 
with  human  blood  in  April  were  green  with  the  harvest  in 
June ;  women  reared  in  luxury  cut  up  their  dresses  and  made 


368  PRESENTATION" 

breeches  for  their  husbands,  and,  with  a  patience  and  her- 
oism that  fit  women  always  as  a  garment,  gave  their  hands  to 
work.  There  was  little  bitterness  in  all  this.  Cheerfulness 
and  frankness  prevailed.1 

Narrative.  A  dramatic  bit  of  narrative  makes  the  very 
heart  of  Sherman  Hoar's  American  Courage. 

The  particular  example  I  desire  to  speak  about  is  of  that 
splendid  quality  of  courage  which  dares  everything  not  for 
self  or  country,  but  for  an  enemy.  It  is  of  that  kind  which 
is  called  into  existence  not  by  dreams  of  glory,  or  by  love  of 
land,  but  by  the  highest  human  desire ;  the  desire  to  mitigate 
suffering  in  those  who  are  against  us. 

In  the  afternoon  of  the  day  after  the  battle  of  Fredericks- 
burg,  General  Kershaw  of  the  Confederate  army  was  sitting 
in  his  quarters  when  suddenly  a  young  South  Carolinian 
named  Kirkland  entered,  and,  after  the  usual  salutations, 
said:  "General,  I  can't  stand  this."  The  general,  thinking 
the  statement  a  little  abrupt,  asked  what  it  was  he  could  not 
stand,  and  Kirkland  replied  :  "  Those  poor  fellows  out  yonder 
have  been  crying  for  water  all  day,  and  I  have  come  to  you 
to  ask  if  I  may  go  and  give  them  some."  The  "  poor  fellows  " 
were  Union  soldiers  who  lay  wounded  between  the  Union  and 
Confederate  lines.  To  get  to  them  Kirkland  must  go  beyond 
the  protection  of  the  breastworks  and  expose  himself  to  a  fire 
from  the  Union  sharpshooters,  who,  so  far  during  that  day, 
had  made  the  raising  above  the  Confederate  works  of  so  much 
as  a  head  an  act  of  extreme  danger.  General  Kershaw  at  first 
refused  to  allow  Kirkland  to  go  on  his  errand,  but  at  last, 
as  the  lad  persisted  in  his  request,  declined  to  forbid  him, 
leaving  the  responsibility  for  the  action  with  the  boy  himself. 
Kirkland,  in  perfect  delight,  rushed  from  the  general's  quar- 
ters to  the  front,  where  he  gathered  all  the  canteens  he  could 
carry,  filled  them  with  water,  and  going  over  the  breastworks, 

1  Modern  American  Oratory.  R.  C.  Ringwalt.  pp.  283-284.  H.  Holt 
&  Co. 


CHARACTERIZATION  AND  EPIGRAM  369 

started  to  give  relief  to  his  wounded  enemies.  No  sooner  was 
he  in  the  open  field  than  our  sharpshooters,  supposing  he  was 
going  to  plunder  their  comrades,  began  to  fire  at  him.  For 
some  minutes  he  went  about  doing  good  under  circumstances 
of  most  imminent  personal  danger.  Soon,  however,  those  to 
whom  he  was  taking  the  water  recognized  the  character  of 
his  undertaking.  All  over  the  field  men  sat  up  and  called 
to  him,  and  those  too  hurt  to  raise  themselves,  held  up  their 
hands  and  beckoned  to  him.  Soon  our  sharpshooters,  who 
luckily  had  not  hit  him,  saw  that  he  was  indeed  an  Angel  of 
Mercy  and  stopped  their  fire,  and  two  armies  looked  with 
admiration  at  the  young  man's  pluck  and  loving  kindness. 
With  a  beautiful  tenderness,  I^irkland  went  about  his  work, 
giving  of  the  water  to  all,  and  here  and  there  placing  a  knap- 
sack pillow  under  some  poor  wounded  fellow's  head,  or  put- 
ting in  a  more  comfortable  position  some  shattered  leg  or 
arm.  Then  he  went  back  to  his  own  lines  and  the  fighting 
went  on.  Tell  me  of  a  more  exalted  example  of  personal 
courage  and  self-denial  than  that  of  that  Confederate  soldier, 
or  one  which  more  clearly  deserves  the  name  of  Christian 
fortitude.1 

Characterization  and  epigram.  Disraeli,  speaking  On  the 
Berlin  Congress,  drove  home  the  contrast  between  his  own 
ministry  and  the  leader  of  the  opposition  with  characteri- 
zation so  telling  that  it  instantly  became  famous  as  a 
hostile  portrait  of  Gladstone. 

I  would  put  this  issue  to  an  English  jury  —  Which  do  you 
believe  most  likely  to  enter  into  an  insane  Convention,  a 
body  of  English  gentlemen,  honoured  by  the  favour  and  the 
confidence  of  their  fellow-subjects,  managing  your  affairs  for 
five  years,  I  hope  with  prudence  and  not  altogether  without 
success,  or  a  sophisticated  rhetorician,  inebriated  with  the 

1  Modern  Reader  and  Speaker.  G.  Riddle,  pp.  145-146.  H.  S.  Stone 
&  Co.  1900. 


370  PRESENTATION 

exuberance  of  his  own  verbosity,  and  gifted  with  an  egotis- 
tical imagination  that  can  at  all  times  command  an  inter- 
minable and  inconsistent  series  of  arguments  to  malign  an 
opponent  and  to  glorify  himself?1 

He  who  wishes  to  characterize  effectively  must  not  for- 
get the  epigram.  Nothing  ever  said  of  Colley  Gibber  and 
his  famous  Apology  bettered  Henry  Fielding's  remark  that 
Colley  "  lived  his  life  in  order  to  have  an  opportunity  of 
apologizing  for  it."  An  old  quatrain  gives  the  essentials 
of  a  good  epigram :  — 

The  qualities  rare  in  a  bee  that  we  meet 

In  an  epigram  never  should  fail ; 
The  body  should  always  be  little  and  sweet, 

And  a  sting  should  be  left  in  its  tail. 

It  should  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  epigram  is  best___ 
cultivated  not  as  an  end  in  itself,  but  as  a  means  to  clear- 
ness, for  the  cult  of  the  epigram  recently  has  brought  it 
into  some  disrepute. 

Metaphor  and  simile.  Perhaps  the  most  famous  recent 
effect  gained  from  metaphor  is  Mr.  Bryan's  close  to  his 
speech  at  the  Democratic  National  Convention  in  1896. 

If  they  dare  come  out  in  the  open  field  and  defend  the  gold 
standard  as  a  good  thing,  we  will  fight  them  to  the  uttermost. 
Having  behind  us  the  producing  masses  of  this  nation  and 
the  world,  supported  by  the  commercial  interests,  the  laboring 
interests,  and  the  toilers  everywhere,  we  will  answer  their 
demand  for  a  gold  standard  by  saying  to  them  :  You  shall 
not  press  down  upon  the  brow  of  labor  this  crown  of  thorns ; 
you  shall  not  crucify  mankind  upon  a  cross  of  gold.2 

1  Modern  Political  Orations.    L.  Wagner,     p.  188.     H.  Holt  &  Co. 
1896. 

2  The  First  Battle.    W.  J.  Bryan,    pp.  199-206.    W.  B.  Conkey  Co. 


METAPHOR  AND  SIMILE  —  EMPHASIS  371 

A  brilliant  simile  in  the  following  from  Froude  on  Car- 
dinal Wolsey  not  only  saves  detailed  comment,  but  seems 
the  final  word  on  its  subject. 

Cardinal  Wolsey  wrote  that  if  he  "could  only  see  the 
divorce  arranged,  the  King  remarried,  the  succession  settled, 
and  the  laws  and  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  country 
reformed,  he  would  retire  from  the  world  and  would  serve 
God  the  remainder  of  his  days.'7  To  these  few  trifles  he 
would  be  contented  to  confine  himself  —  only  to  these ;  he 
was  past  sixty,  he  was  weary  of  the  world,  and  his  health 
was  breaking,  and  he  would  limit  his  hopes  to  the  execution 
of  a  work  for  which  centuries  imperfectly  sufficed.  It  seemed 
as  if  he  measured  his  stature  by  the  lengthening  shadow,  as 
his  sun  made  haste  to  its  setting.1 

These  devices  not  necessarily  proof.  Use  of  these  various 
devices  not  only  gives  clearness,  it  lends  variety,  vividness, 
and  interest  to  the  argument.  Yet  in  using  all  these  various 
devices,  a  student  should  bear  'in  mind  what  J.  R.  Lowell 
said  of  the  metaphor.  "A  metaphor  is  no  argument, 
though  it  be  sometimes  the  gunpowder  to  drive  one  home 
and  imbed  it  in  the  memory."  Illustration,  description, 
narration,  characterization,  epigram,  metaphor,  and  simile, 
all  give  clarity:  to  go  a  step  farther  and  prove  anything 
true,  they  must  first  undergo  successfully  the  tests  of  good 
evidence. 

Emphasis.  A  great  aid  to  clearness,  namely  proper  em- 
phasis—  keeping  before  a  reader  what  you  wish  him  to 
grant  or  to  remember  —  also  helps  to  force  and  move- 
ment. Emphasis  is,  however,  far  too  often  neglected  by 
beginners  in  argumentation.  The  fact  is,  good  emphasis 
is  indispensable  in  correct  argumentation,  for  of  course  the 

1  History  of  England.    J.  A.  Froude.    Vol.  I,  p.  141. 


372  PRESENTATION 

whole  analytical  process  of  separating  what  is  essential  in  a 
case  from  what  is  extraneous  is  a  study  of  emphasis  by  selec- 
tion, and  when  a  student,  in  preparing  his  brief,  considers 
whether  an  idea  should  be  made  a  heading  or  a  subhead- 
ing, and  how  he  must  arrange  his  ideas  in  order  to  obtain 
climax,  he  again  studies  emphasis,  for  what  is  given  a 
main  position  or  is  placed  as  final  in  climax  is  emphasized. 
Indeed,  the  emphasis  which  comes  from  the  position  given 
many  ideas  is  largely  settled  in  the  brief.  Rhetoric,  how- 
ever, may  still  do  much  for  emphasis  in  the  forensic  both 
by  the  position  given  details  and  by  phrasing  in  general, 
for  any  college  student  knows  that  whether  an  idea  is 
placed  at  the  beginning,  in  the  middle,  or  at  the  end  of 
a  sentence  or  paragraph  affects  emphasis,  and  that  the 
very  phrasing  of  the  thought  may  make  it  insignificant  or 
memorable. 

The  first  point  to  remember  is  that  proper  emphasis 
should  permeate  all  parts  of  the  forensic  —  that  due  em- 
phasis of  the  whole  can  come  only  through  correct  emphasis 
in  divisions,  paragraphs,  and  sentences.  All  that  was 
said  of  the  importance  of  emphasis  in  refutation1  applies 
equally  to  the  handling  of  one's  own  case.  Constantly 
beginners  in  argumentation  who  produce  good  evidence 
forget  to  make  clear  at  the  beginning  of  a  division  just 
the  point  on  which  the  evidence  bears,  or  fail  to  keep 
clear  during  their  development  of  the  division  the  effect 
on  this  point  of  the  evidence  presented,  or  pass  swiftly 
from  the  evidence  to  a  new  subheading,  letting  a  reader 
decide  for  himself  the  total  accomplishment  of  the  division 
or  paragraph.  Instead,  they  should  drive  home  what  the 
division  has  accomplished  as  to  the  idea  central  in  it  and, 
1  See  pp.  175-180. 


PERVASIVE  EMPHASIS  373 

also,  what  this  central  idea  has  done  toward  proving  true 
the  main  proposition.  Too  often  a  reader  is  left  at  the 
end  of  a  division  feeling  that  evidently  he  should  be 
convinced  as  to  something,  but  he  cannot  see  exactly 
what.  Of  course,  all  the  aids  to  clearness  already  consid- 
ered —  description,  narration,  illustration,  epigram,  char- 
acterization, metaphor,  and  simile  —  may  also  be  used  to 
give  emphasis,  but  in  addition  iteration  and  summarizing 
are  great  helps  to  emphasis,  and  consequently  to  clearness, 
force,  and  movement.  Indeed,  iteration  is  one  of  the  com- 
monest devices  for  gaining  emphasis.1  Its  value  was  fully 
recognized  even  early  in  Greek  oratory.  "  A  striking  trait 
of  Isseus  [420-350  B.C.]  in  the  province  of  argument  is 
iteration ;  and  the  preference  of  emphasis  to  form  which 
this  implies  is  worth  notice  as  suggesting  how  the  prac- 
tical view  of  oratory  was  beginning  to  prevail  over  the 
artistic.  Sometimes  the  repetition  is  verbal  —  an  indig- 
nant question  or  phrase  occurs  again  and  again,  where 
Isocrates  would  have  abstained  from  using  it  twice.  More 
often  it  is  an  argument  or  a  statement  which  the  speaker 
aims  at  impressing  on  the  hearers  by  urging  it  in  a  series 
of  different  forms  and  connections.  Or  even  a  document, 
cited  at  the  outset,  is  read  a  second  time,  as  if  to  make 
the  jury  realize  more  vividly  that  a  circle  of  proof  has 
been  completed."2 

At  the  end  of  a  long,  involved,  or  technical  division  of 
an  argument  a  writer  may  well  give  a  succinct  outline  of 
its  content  which  shall  leave  a  reader  clear  as  to  the  work 
it  has  accomplished.  The  essentials  of  a  good  summary 

1  For  iteration  see  the  first  two  sentences  of  the  extract  from  Steven- 
son's Father  Damien,  given  on  p.  366. 

2  Attic  Orators.     Jebb.     Vol.  II,  p.  297.     Macmillan  &  Co. 


374  PRESENTATION 

are :  to  include  every  important  point  made  ;  to  show  clearly 
their  relations  to  one  another ;  to  give  each  its  due  empha- 
sis; to  provide  one  or  more,  as  circumstances  require,  with 
persuasive  significance ;  and  to  leave  perfectly  clear  the 
meaning  and  the  purposes  of  the  ideas  taken  as  a  group. 
Moreover,  if  one  uses  summaries  freely  throughout  a 
forensic,  it  is  well  to  vary  their  form :  otherwise  the  con- 
stant repetition  may  produce  not  only  monotony,  but  unde- 
sirable formality  of  effect. 

Here  is  the  summary  —  entirely  without  attempt  at 
persuasion  —  with  which  Justice  Harlan  closed  the  second 
part  of  his  argument  before  the  Behring  Sea  TribunaHn 
1893:- 

If  I  am  correct  in  the  views  above  expressed,  the  answers 
to  the  first  four  points  of  Article  VI  should  be,  substantially, 
as  follows  : 

To  the  first.  —  Prior  to  and  up  to  the  time  of  the  cession 
of  Alaska  to  the  United  States,.  Russia  did  not  assert  nor  exer- 
cise any  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  Behring  Sea,  or  any  exclusive 
rights  in  the  fur  seal  fisheries  in  that  sea,  outside  of  ordinary 
territorial  waters,  except  that  in  the  Ukase  of  1821  she  did 
assert  the  right  to  prevent  foreign  vessels  from  approaching 
nearer  than  100  Italian  miles  the  coasts  and  islands  named  in 
that  Ukase.  But,  pending  the  negotiations  to  which  that  Ukase 
gave  rise,  Russia  voluntarily  suspended  its  execution,  so  far  as 
to  direct  its  officers  to  restrict  their  surveillance  of  foreign 
vessels  to  the  distance  of  cannon  shot  from  the  shores  men- 
tioned, and  by  the  treaty  of  1824  with  the  United  States,  as 
well  as  by  that  of  1825  with  Great  Britain,  the  above  Ukase 
was  withdrawn,  and  the  claim  of  authority,  or  the  power  to 
prohibit  foreign  vessels  from  approaching  the  coasts  nearer 
than  100  Italian  miles  was  abandoned,  by  the  agreement 
embodied  in  those  treaties  to  the  effect  that  the  respective  citi- 
zens and  subjects  of  the  high  contracting  parties  should  not 


EMPHASIS  BY  SUMMARIZING  375 

be  troubled  or  molested,  in  any  part  of  the  Great  Ocean  com- 
monly called  the  Pacific  Ocean,  either  in  navigating  the  same 
or  in  fishing  therein,  or  in  landing  at  such  parts  of  the  coast 
as  shall  not  have  been  already  occupied,  in  order  to  trade  with 
the  natives,  under  the  restrictions  and  conditions  specified  in 
other  articles  of  those  treaties. 

To  the  second. — Great  Britain  never  recognized  nor  con- 
ceded any  claim  by  Russia  of  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  Behring 
Sea,  nor  of  exclusive  rights  as  to  the  seal  fisheries  therein,  out- 
side of  ordinary  territorial  waters  ;  although  she  did  recognize 
and  concede  Eussia's  exclusive  jurisdiction  within  her  own 
territory,  and  such  jurisdiction  inside  of  territorial  waters  as 
was  consistent  with  the  law  of  nations. 

To  the  third.  — The  body  of  water  now  known  as  Behring 
Sea  was  included  in  the  phrase  "Pacific  Ocean"  as  used  in  the 
treaty  of  1825  between  Great  Britain  and  Eussia,  and,  after 
that  treaty,  Eussia  neither  held  nor  exercised  any  rights  in 
the  waters  of  Behring  Sea  —  outside  of  ordinary  territorial 
waters  —  that  did  not  belong  in  the  same  waters  to  other 
countries. 

To  the  fourth.  —  All  the  rights  of  Eussia  as  to  jurisdiction, 
and  as  to  the  seal  fisheries  in  Behring  Sea,  east  of  the  water 
boundary  in  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Eussia 
of  March  30,  1867,  passed,  under  that  treaty,  unimpaired  to 
the  United  States.1 

This  summary  from  W.  H.  Seward's  speech  in  1858, 
On  the  Irrepressible  Conflict,  shows,  in  contrast,  strong 
feeling  and .  persuasive  appeal. 

Such  is  the  Democratic  party.  It  has  no  policy,  state  or 
federal,  for  finance,  or  trade,  or  manufacture,  or  commerce, 
or  education,  or  internal  improvements,  or  for  the  protection  or 
even  the  security  of  civil  or  religious  liberty.  It  is  positive 
and  uncompromising  in  the  interest  of  slavery, — negative, 

1  Behring  Sea  Arbitration.     Harlan.    pp.  110-111. 


376  PRESENTATION 

compromising,  and  vacillating  in  regard  to  everything  else.  It 
boasts  its  love  of  equality ;  and  wastes  its  strength,  and  even 
its  life,  in  fortifying  the  only  aristocracy  known  in  the  land. 
It  professes  fraternity  ;  and,  so  often  as  slavery  requires,  allies 
itself  with  proscription.  It  magnifies  itself  for  conquests  in 
foreign  lands  ;  but  it  sends  the  national  eagle  forth  always  with 
chains,  and  not  the  olive  branch,  in  his  fangs. 

This  dark  record  shows  you,  fellow  citizens,  what  I  was 
unwilling  to  announce  at  an  earlier  stage  of  this  argument, 
that  of  the  whole  nefarious  schedule  of  slaveholding  designs 
which  I  have  submitted  to  you,  the  Democratic  party  has  left 
only  one  yet  to  be  consummated  —  the  abrogation  of  the  law 
which  forbids  the  African  slave  trade.1 

Edmund  Burke  was  a  master  of  the  summary,  as  study 
of  its  frequent  use  in  his  speech  On  Conciliation  with  the 
American  Colonies  will  show.  Here  are  two  striking 
instances  of  his  use  of  the  summary:  — 

Then  sir,  from  these  six  capital  sources :  of  descent ;  of 
form  of  government ;  of  religion  in  the  northern  provinces ; 
of  manners  in  the  southern ;  of  education ;  of  the  remoteness 
of  situation  from  the  first  mover  of  government, — from  all 
these  causes  a  fierce  spirit  of  liberty  has  grown  up.  It  has 
grown  with  the  growth  of  the  people  in  your  colonies,  and 
increased  with  the  increase  of  their  wealth  ;  a  spirit  that, 
unhappily,  meeting  with  an  exercise  of  power  in  England, 
which,  however  lawful,  is  not  reconcilable  to  any  ideas  of 
liberty,  much  less  with  theirs,  has  kindled  this  flame  that 
is  ready  to  consume  us.2 

Sir,  here  is  the  repeated  acknowledgment  of  parliament  that 
the  colonies  not  only  gave,  but  gave  to  satiety.  This  nation 
has  formally  acknowledged  two  things  ;  first,  that  the  colonies 

1  Orations  and  Arguments.     C.  B.  Bradley,    pp.    308-309.     Allyn  & 
Bacon.    1894. 

2  Political  Orations.    Cainelot  Series,    p.  72.    W.  Scott.    London. 


FORCE  377 

had  gone  beyond  their  abilities,  parliament  having  thought  it 
necessary  to  reimburse  them ;  secondly,  that  they  had  acted 
legally  and  laudably  in  their  grants  of  money,  and  their  main- 
tenance of  troops,  since  the  compensation  is  expressly  given 
as  reward  and  encouragement.  Reward  is  not  bestowed  for 
acts  that  are  unlawful ;  and  encouragement  is  not  held  out  to 
things  that  deserve  reprehension.  My  resolution,  therefore, 
does  nothing  more  than  collect  into  one  proposition  what  is 
scattered  through  your  journals.  I  give  you  nothing  but  your 
own;  and  you  cannot  refuse  in  the  gross  what  you  have  so 
often  acknowledged  in  detail.  The  admission  of  this,  which 
will  be  so  honorable  to  them  and  to  you,  will,  indeed,  be  mortal 
to  all  the  miserable  stories  by  which  the  passions  of  the  mis- 
guided people  have  been  engaged  in  an  unhappy  system.1 

3.  Force.  As  has  been  seen,  proper  emphasis  conduces  to 
the  third  essential  in  the  rhetorical  presentation  of  argu- 
ment—  force.  In  handling  evidence  a  student  will  find 
that  four  other  suggestions  will  much  increase  its  force. 

First,  when  a  witness  who  may  be  unknown  is  quoted, 
always  explain  why  he  has  been  selected.  A  reader 
should  never  be  left  in  doubt  as  to  the  honesty,  the  intel- 
ligence, the  competence,  or  even  the  authoritativeness  of 
a  witness.  College  students  often  quote  evidence  —  valu- 
able only  if  it  come  from  reliable  sources  —  from  books  or 
articles  whose  writers  are  not  known  to  their  readers.  If 
the  students  know  why  the  witnesses  are  trustworthy  they 
should  share  the  information  with  their  readers  as  they 
cite  the  testimony.  As  was  the  case  with  the  argument 
from  authority  (see  pp.  67-68),  here,  too,  the  evidence 
must  not  be  used  for  the  value  it  seems  to  the  writer  to 
have,  but  for  the  value  he  can  give  it  with  his  audience. 
He  should  always  remember  that  in  using  evidence  he  is 

lldem.    p.  99. 


378  PRESENTATION 

likely  to  start  two  questions:  not  merely,  "What  does 
your  evidence  show  ?  "  but  also,  "  What  value  have  your 
sources  of  information  ?  "  Professor  Dicey,  with  this  fact 
in  mind,  in  his  review  of  the  verdict  of  the  Parnell  Com- 
mission showed  carefully  why  he  thought  all  readers  should 
trust  the  judges :  — 

Of  the  honesty  of  the  three  judges,  of  their  intentional  fair- 
ness, of  their  unblemished  character,  of  their  judicial  capacity, 
it  is  needless  to  say  anything.  Their  special  qualifications 
for  the  .discharge  of  a  most  arduous  task  are  on  all  hands 
admitted.  The  means  possessed  by  them  for  ascertaining  the 
truth  were,  strictly  speaking,  unparalleled ;  these  means  were 
such  as  never  have  been,  and  probably  never  again  will  be, 
possessed  by  any  other  men,  whether  politicians  or  magistrates. 
Sir  James  Hannen  and  his  colleagues  saw  and  heard  all  the 
witnesses  whom  the  foes  or  the  defenders  of  the  League  chose 
to  produce  ;  all  the  evidence  brought  forward  was  given  on 
oath,  it  was  subjected  to  the  test  of  the  most  rigorous  cross- 
examination,  it  was  sifted  with  the  utmost  care  without  any 
regard  to  the  expenditure  either  of  time  or  of  labor  ;  the  law- 
yers employed  on  either  side  were  the  picked  men  of  the  legal 
profession  in  England  and  in  Ireland/  No  one's  mouth  was 
closed.  The  one  circumstance  which  is  supposed  to  detract 
from  the  fairness  of  our  criminal  procedure  —  the  compulsory 
silence  of  the  accused  —  was  from  the  peculiar  nature  of  the 
investigation  got  rid  of.  Every  respondent  was  at  liberty  to 
appear  and  make  whatever  statement  he  chose  in  defence  of 
himself  or  of  the  association  of  which  he  was  a  member.  The 
appearance  of  some  and  the  non-appearance  of  others  among 
the  Parnellites  incriminated  were  equally  instructive.  The 
non-production  of  proof  may  be  at  least  as  suggestive  as  its  pro- 
duction ;  silence  may  tell  more  than  speech.  Of  the  amount 
of  the  evidence  brought  before  the  Commission  Court  some 
faint  conception  may  be  formed  by  remembering  that  over  450 


FORCE  379 

witnesses  were  examined,  that  the  proceedings  in  court  lasted 
for  128  days,  and  that  the  official  account  of  them  fills  a  "  Blue- 
book"  of  eleven  huge  volumes,  making  up  7227  pages.  During 
a  much  longer  period,  moreover,  than  the  128  days  of  the  in- 
quiry the  effect  of  the  evidence  was  before  the  minds  of  the 
judges.  They  did  not  deliver  any  hasty  decision  ;  months 
elapsed  between  the  closing  of  the  investigation  and  the  send- 
ing in  of  their  Report.  If  the  account  given  by  such  men  of 
the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  such  an  inquiry  is  not  to 
be  treated  as  trustworthy  and  true,  it  is  hard  to  say  what  is 
the  evidence  on  which  any  man  can  venture  to  rely.1 

Secondly,  in  handling  evidence  remember  always  that 
when  opposing  testimony  or  reasoning  has  been  or  is 
sure  to  be  cited  against  yours,  .you  cannot  merely  state 
your  opinion  of  your  evidence,  but  must  relate  it  to  the 
opposing  evidence,  showing  clearly  why  it  is  more  trust- 
worthy either  per  se  or  because  of  the  superior  nature  of 
the  sources  from  which  it  is  derived.2 

Thirdly,  do  not  forget  that  it  is  not  enough  to  know 
how  to  distinguish  good  evidence  from  bad:  one  must 
be  able  to  separate  good  from  mediocre,  best  from  better. 
Some  of  the  evidence  which  accumulates  when  one  is 
preparing  to  argue  any  case  is  not  by  itself  conclusive. 
Other  bits  which  taken  alone  are  not  conclusive  become 
so  when  combined  with  two.  or  three  others  of  no  more 
value  in  themselves.  There  will,  too,  be  some  evidence 
which,  though  not  bad,  may  be  excluded  by  a  worker 
because  he  has  other  material  which  is  more  convincing. 

1  The  Verdict.     A.  V.  Dicey,     pp.  3-4.     Cassell  &  Co.     1890. 

2  This  principle  is  fully  illustrated  by  the  extract  from  J.  C.  Collins's 
article  on  Swift's  Relationship  to  Stella,  printed  in  the  Appendix.     See 
especially  the  last  paragraph. 


380  PRESENTATION 

When  handling  evidence  he  .will  find  it  convenient  to 
remember  the  old  distich:  — 

Where  one's  proofs  are  aptly  chosen 
Four  are  as  valid  as  four  dozen.1 

Not  the  number  of  details  of  proof,  but  their  convincing- 
ness, is  the  important  matter  in  evidence,  and  a  writer 
should  always  use  as  little  evidence  as  is  consistent  with 
proving  his  point.  By  this  means  he  gains  in  force,  for, 
as  has  been  justly  said,  "Proof  which  goes  for  nothing, 
goes  for  less  than  nothing."  This  is  true  because  a  reader 
keen  enough  to  see  that  nothing  is  gained  by  the  presence 
of  the  proof  in  question  is  forced  to  believe  that  the  writer 
thought  it  had  value  when  it  had  none,  or  was  willing  to 
palm  off  evidence  as  convincing  which  was  not,  or  was  a 
careless  workman.  Any  of  these  suppositions  will  make 
him  suspicious  of  the  man  and  his  work.  Hence  the  proof 
that  seemed  harmless  has  done  decided  harm. 

A  student  should  not,  however,  forget,  in  his  desire  to 
give  only  the  proof  absolutely  necessary,  that  some  ques- 
tions cannot  be  proved  true  by  one  instance,  one  bit  of 
evidence.  For  instance,  in  treating  the  question,  "  Should 
a  Federation  of  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies  be  formed  ?  " 
it  is  not  enough  to  show  that  this  would  be  advantageous 
for  Great  Britain,  or  for  Cape  Colony,  or  New  South  Wales, 
but  the  colonies  must  be  divided  into  groups  whose  condi- 
tions are  alike,  and  the  needs  of  each  group  considered. 
This  is  also  true,  as  was  pointed  out  (p.  162),  of  the  ques- 
tion "  Should  the  Australian  Ballot  System  be  adopted  in 
the  United  States  ?  "  That  is,  if  a  student  does  not  remem- 
ber that  some  statements  cannot  be  proved  true  by  a  single 

1  Quoted  by  J.  Q.  Adams,  Lectures  on  Oratory.    Vol.  II,  p.  92. 


FORCE  381 

instance, 'no  matter  how  strong,  he  will  fall  into  the  fal- 
lacy of  proving  true  for  only  a  part  what  should  be  proved 
true  for  the  whole.1 

Fourthly,  avoid  qualification.  A  writer  sometimes  closes 
a  paragraph,  a  division,  or  the  whole  argument  with  the 
words :  "  This,  then,  seems  true  for  these  reasons  [naming 
them],  but  even  if  I  have  not  proved  this  true,  I  have  cer- 
tainly shown  that,"  etc.  At  once  a  reader's  suspicions  are 
aroused,  for  he  fears  that  the  writer,  working  carelessly  or 
ignorantly,  and  in  either  case  not  correctly  valuing  his 
evidence  before  using  it,  has  been  forced  to  recognize  or  to 
admit  its  inadequacy  at  the  last  moment.  This  suspicion 
will  almost  surely  affect  even  earlier  parts  of  the  work, 
for  qualification  is  admission  of  faulty  work.  When  a 
man  states  in  any  part  of  his  argument  that  in  what  pre- 
cedes he  has  proved  true  what  is  really  but  a  qualified 
form  of  the  thesis  he  has  been  maintaining,  whether  main 
or  subordinate,  he  admits  his  failure  to  make  good  that 
thesis. 

A  form  of  qualification  appears  in  the  following  extract 
from  Pitt's  speech,  On  the  Slave  Trade  :  — 

On  the  part  of  the  West  Indians  it  is  urged,  "  The  planters 
are  in  debt,  they  are  already  distressed  ;  if  you  stop  the  slave 

1  Students  should  remember  that  (1)  whenever  they  give  another's 
words  exactly,  that  is  quote,  they  should  place  the  words  within  quota- 
tion marks,  acknowledging  in  a  footnote  their  indebtedness  by  naming 
the  source  of  the  quotation,  with  the  chapter  or  page,  and,  if  there  is  more 
than  one  volume  or  edition,  the  volume  and  the  edition  used ;  (2)  they 
should  not  when  merely  paraphrasing  allow  themselves  to  be  given  credit 
for  ideas  that  are  really  another's.  Sometimes  a  clever  student  will 
restate  a  writer's  thoughts  in  fewer  words  or  more  clearly,  but  he  should 
always  acknowledge  in  a  footnote  that  the  gist  of  his  words  is  borrowed, 
and  tell  whence  it  comes.  These  two  laws,  too  often  transgressed  in 
literary  work,  are  really  but  common  honesty. 


382  PKESENTATION 

trade,  they  will  be  ruined."  Mr.  Long,  the  celebrated  historian 
of  Jamaica,  recommends  the  stopping  of  importations  as  a 
receipt  for  enabling  the  plantations  which  are  embarrassed  to 
get  out  of  debt.  Speaking  of  the  usurious  terms  on  which 
money  is  often  borrowed  for  the  purchase  of  fresh  slaves,  he 
advises  "the  laying  of  a  duty  equal  to  a  prohibition  on  all 
negroes  imported  for  the  space  of  four  or  five  years,  except  for 
reexportation.  Such  a  law,"  he  proceeds  to  say,  "would  be 
attended  with  the  following  good  consequences.  It  would  put 
an  immediate  stop  to  these  extortions ;  it  would  enable  the 
planter  to  retrieve  his  affairs  by  preventing  him  from  running 
in  debt,  either  by  renting  or  purchasing  negroes ;  it  would 
render  such  recruits  less  necessary,  by  the  redoubled  care  he 
would  be  obliged  to  take  of  his  present  stock,  the  preservation 
of  their  lives  and  health ;  and  lastly,  it  would  raise  the  value 
of  negroes  in  the  island.  A  North  American  province,  by  this 
prohibition  alone  for  a  few  years,  from  being  deeply  plunged 
in  debt,  has  become  independent,  rich,  and  nourishing."  On 
this  authority  of  Mr.  Long  I  rest  the  question  whether  the 
prohibition  of  future  importations  is  that  rash,  impolitic,  and 
completely  ruinous  measure  which  it  is  so  confidently  declared 
to  be  with  respect  to  our  West  Indian  plantations.  I  do  not, 
however,  mean,  in  thus  treating  this  branch  of  the  subject, 
absolutely  to  exclude  the  question  of  indemnification,  on  the 
supposition  of  possible  disadvantages  affecting  the  West  Indies 
through  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade.  But  when  gentlemen 
set  up  a  claim  of  compensation  merely  on  these  general  allega- 
tions, which  are  all  that  I  have  yet  heard  from  them,  I  can 
only  answer,  let  them  produce  their  case  in  a  distinct  and 
specific  form  ;  and  if  upon  any  practicable  or  reasonable 
grounds  it  shall  claim  consideration,  it  will  then  be  time 
enough  for  Parliament  to  decide  upon  it.1 

Pitt  seems,  up  to  "  I  do  not,  however,"  to  be  proving 
that  the  abolition  of  slavery  could  not  hurt  the  planters 

1  Political  Orations.    Camelot  Series,    pp.  147-148.    W.  Scott. 


MOVEMENT  383 

of  the  West  Indies.  In  the  lines  after  "  I  do  not,  how- 
ever," he  implies  that  he  can  conceive  that  it  might  hurt 
them  sufficiently  to  justify  them  in  asking  for  indemnity. 
This  makes  a  reader  feel  that  for  some  reason  Pitt  did 
not  believe  what  seems  his  conclusive  proof  to  be  such, 
and  weakens  the  force  of  the  first  part  of  the  paragraph. 
A  little  change  in  the  phrasing  and  the  arrangement  of 
the  paragraph  would  obviate  this  difficulty.  The  correct 
order  of  the  train  of  thought  underlying  the  paragraph 
is  this:  The  West  Indians  say  the  abolition  of  slavery 
will  ruin  them ;  yet,  though  (1)  it  may  cause  them  some 
loss  at  the  outset,  (2)  it  cannot  ruin  them,  (3)  may  really 
help  them,  and  (4)  an  indemnity  would  meet  satisfactorily 
the  immediate  loss.  By  slightly  confusing  this  order  Pitt 
produces  the  effect  of  qualification,  for  were  the  ideas 
treated  strictly  in  this  order  and  form  the  qualification 
would  disappear.  When  a  writer  is  tempted  to  qualify, 
let  him  find  (1)  just  what  it  is  he  is  trying  to  prove  in  the 
division,  and  then  (2)  whether  his  evidence  is  equal  to  his 
needs.  If  his  evidence  is  insufficient,  let  him  find  new 
evidence  sufficiently  strong,  or  change  his  proposition  to 
something  his  original*  evidence  will  prove  true.  Then 
qualification  will  disappear. 

4.  Movement.  In  any  argument  progress  toward  a  con- 
clusion already  stated,  or  gradually  becoming  more  definite, 
i,s  essential.  Unless  there  be  a  similar  movement  within 
each  division  of  the  work,  this  total  movement  will  be  ham- 
pered or  even  rendered  impossible.  Clearness  and  force, 
of  course,  conduce  to  it,  but  especial  aids  are  avoidance  of 
digression  and  neat  transitions. 

A  good  brief  should  make  frequent  or  extensive  digres- 
sion in  the  forensic  impossible,  for  it  should  have  separated 


384  PRESENTATION 

essential  from  unessential  matter  and  should  hold  a  writer 
to  a  sequential  development  of  his  case.  Without  a  pre- 
ceding brief,  a  forensic  is  likely  to  resemble  in  movement  a 
dog  out  walking  with  his  master.  He  certainly  covers  the 
ground,  but  he  is  drawn  off  the  straight  road  by  any  new 
thing  which  catches  his  eye,  and  is  now  at  his  master's 
heels,  now  over  the  stone  wall,  now  barking  up  a  tree. 
Good  briefing  will  thwart  any  similar  tendency  in  a  writer 
to  leave  the  straight  road  and  follow  now  one  interest, 
now  another,  but  unless  the  movement  within  each  para- 
graph be  considered,  occasional  undesirable  digression  may 
still  appear. 

Often,  too,  the  paragraphs  of  a  forensic  are  independent 
and  apparently  even  mutually  repellent  blocks  of  thought. 
In  ideal  work  each  sentence  of  a  paragraph  develops  natu- 
rally into  the  next,  each  paragraph  develops  into  that 
which  follows  it,  each  division  leads  to  the  one  succeed- 
ing. Such  unity  gives  not  only  clearness  and  force,  but 
also  ease  and  a  flowing  style.  Indeed,  neat  transitions  give 
emphasis  as  well  as  movement,  for  when  a  writer  in  pass- 
ing from  one  paragraph  to  another  is  careful  to  leave  a 
reader  clear  as  to  the  work  done-  by  the  first  paragraph 
and  the  relation  to  it  of  the  second,  he  has  gained  move- 
ment by  proper  emphasis.  Examination  of  Pitt's  Speech 
'on  the  Slave  Trade?  G rattan's  Declaration  of  Irish  Rights? 
or  Erskine's  Defense  of  Lord  G-eorge  Grordon 8  will  demon- 
strate the  common  movement  and  ease  which  neat  transi- 
tions may  give  speeches  on  very  different  subjects  delivered 
under  dissimilar  conditions. 

1  Political  Orations,     p.  138.     W.  Scott.     London. 

2  Idem.     p.  120. 

8  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     p.  86. 


STYLE  IN  ARGUMENT  385 

Style  in  argument.  Clearness,  force,  and  movement  are 
not,  however,  everything  needed  in  argument.  In  perfect 
work  ideas  must  be  clothed  in  a  style  so  fitting  that  it 
contributes  directly  to  the  total  effect.  Students  seem  to 
regard  style  as  a  "  reward  of  merit "  due  them  after  mas- 
tering the  rudiments  of  rhetoric  and  studying  some  speci- 
mens of  English  literature.  Really  style  is  "  a  thinking 
out  into  language,"  the  visible  expression  of  the  inner 
thought.  To  be  what  it  should,  style  must  express  the 
thought  clearly  not  merely  for  the  speaker  but  for  the 
audience  addressed,  and  it  must  phrase  the  thought  not  as 
any  one  might  phrase  it  but  so  that  it  reveals  the  speaker's 
individuality.  Style  depends,  then,  primarily  on  thought ; 
secondly  on  imagination,  which  produces  in  the  speaker 
sympathetic  understanding  of  conditions,  events,  and  emo- 
tions treated,  and  chooses  the  right  word  to  reproduce  the 
idea  or  emotion,  not  merely  for  the  thinker  but  for  his  audi- 
ence ;  and  finally  on  an  accurate,  copious,  and  responsive 
vocabulary. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  objected  that  the  principles,  apart 
from  persuasion,  laid  down  in  this  book  seem  at  best  to 
imply  mere  compilation  from  the  work  of  others.  Ques- 
tions, however,  in  which  a  student  can  depend  entirely  on 
his  own  experience  and  thinking  for  arguments  are  very 
rare.  Even  in  these,  he  must  look  beyond  himself  for 
most  of  the  objections  likely  to  be  raised  against  his  ideas. 
In  most  instances,  in  considering  both  sides  of  the  case  he 
must  read  widely.  What  has  been  said,  therefore,  as  to 
analysis,  structure,  and  evidence  means  much  more  than 
copying  or  mere  compilation,  for  in  all  good  argumentation 
thought  by  the  arguer  must  precede,  accompany,  and  fol- 
low the  reading. 


386  PRESENTATION 

Hasty  preparation  without  any  preliminary  scrutiny  of 
the  content  of  one's  mind  on  the  subject  in  debate  and 
without  consideration  of  the  strength  of  an  opponent's 
case  results  in  a  hasty  abstract  of  the  volumes  read,  for  a 
student  finds  that  the  books,  even  if  prejudiced,  naturally 
state  the  ideas  but  roughly  phrased  in  his  mind  better  than 
he  can,  and  consequently  he  is  unable  to  throw  off  their 
influence.  Even  though  he  does  not  make  a  servile  copy 
of  parts  of  two  or  three  books,  he  may  offer  a  jumbled 
paraphrase  that  is  not  better.  The  late  Bishop  Brooks 
said  to  the  Yale  divinity  students :  "The  man  of  special 
preparation  is  always  crude ;  he  is  always  tempted  to  take 
up  some  half-considered  thought  that  strikes  him  in  the 
hurry  of  his  reading,  and  adopt  it  suddenly,  and  set  it 
before  the  people,  as  if  it  were  his  true  conviction.  Many 
a  minister's  sermons  are  scattered  all  over  with  ideas  which 
he  never  held,  but  which  once  held  him  for  a  week,  like 
the  camps  in  other  men's  forests,  where  a  wandering  hunter 
has  slept  for  a  single  night."  l 

Thought  must  also  accompany  the  reading,  for  one 
must  react  on  what  is  read.  Not  to  do  this  is  to  string 
quotations  together,  a  method  which  proclaims  two  unde- 
sirable facts :  that  the  knowledge  is  undigested,  and  that 
there  is  no  personality  behind  the  work.  It  is  the  thought 
which  a  worker  spends  on  the  material  he  gathers,  giving 
old  ideas  new  forms,  new  meanings,  finding  previously 
unrecognized  relations  and  suggestions  in  them,  which  wins 
him  the  right  to  call  ideas  his  own  as  he  presents  them  to 
his  audience.  A  student  once  wrote  of  the  process  — 
naively  but  accurately:  "  Every  one  who  has  read  much 
when  working  up  some  topic  has  often  had  the  experience 

1  Lectures  on  Preaching,    p.  157.    E.  P.  Dutton  &  Co.    1877. 


STYLE  IN  ARGUMENT  — THOUGHT      387 

of  finding  when  he  has  read  a  large  number  of  books  that 
he  has  in  the  end  some  idea  or  theory,  parts  of  which  he 
can  trace  to  almost  every  book  of  the  number,  the  whole 
of  which  he  can  hardly  recognize  as  belonging  to  any  one. 
He  hardly  understands  the  final  compound.  He  cannot 
say  that  it  belongs  to  the  author  of  any  one  of  the  books 
he  has  read.  He  cannot  even  say  it  is  a  composite  of  the 
ideas  of  all  the  books.  In  working  up  both  my  forensics 
this  year,  I  read  a  great  deal.  My  mind  kept  in.  a  perfect 
boil  all  the  time,  and  after  each  book  or  article  I  seemed 
to  have  a  different  conformation  of  ideas.  Ideas  of  my 
own  that  I  started  out  with  were  totally  or  almost  entirely 
changed  in  the  end.  Nor  had  I  apparently  changed  them 
for  those  of  any  one  else.  They  were  not  on  the  other 
hand  original.  I  am  sure  some  one  had  thought  of  every 
one  before.  In  fact,  they  had  flashed  through  my  own  mind 
in  a  vague  way  at  different  times  in  my  life.  My  foren- 
sics were,  in  short,  little  like  my  own  original  ideas  and 
they  were  not  the  ideas  in  any  exact  sense  of  any  one  else. 
I  had  taken  the  ideas  of  other  men  and  moulded  mine  by 
them.  My  application  of  them  was  often  very  different 
from  the  application  of  the  authors  themselves,  yet  I  had 
used  them  and  owed  them  something." 

After  all,  what  can  originality  to-day  be  but  effective 
individual  reaction,  in  the  light  of  one's  experience  or 
thought,  on  the  thought  or  experience  of  others?  J.  R. 
Lowell  puts  the  whole  case  attractively  in  his  lines  on 
"  Franciscus  de  Verulamio  sic  cogitavit." 

That 's  a  rather  bold  speech,  my  Lord  Bacon, 
For,  indeed,  is  't  so  easy  to  know 
Just  how  much  we  from  others  have  taken, 
And  how  much  our  own  natural  flow  ? 


388  PRESENTATION 

Since  your  mind  bubbled  up  at  its  fountain 
How  many  streams  made  it  elate, 
While  it  calmed  to  the  plain  from  the  mountain. 
As  every  mind  must  that  grows  great? 

While  you  thought  'twas  you  thinking  as  newly 
As  Adam  still  wet  with  God's  dew, 
You  forgot  in  your  self-pride  that  truly 
The  whole  Past  was  thinking  through  you. 


And  yet  there  's  the  half  of  a  truth  in  it, 

And  my  Lord  might  his  copyright  sue ; 

For  a  thought 's  his  who  kindles  new  youth  in  it, 

Or  so  puts  it  as  makes  it  more  true. 

The  birds  but  repeat  without  ending 
The  same  old  traditional  notes, 
Which  some,  by  more  happily  blending, 
Seem  to  make  ever  new  in  their  throats ; 

And  we  men  through  our  old  bit  of  song  run, 
Until  one  just  improves  on  the  rest, 
And  we  call  a  thing  his  in  the  long  run, 
Who  utters  it  clearest  and  best.1 

Moreover,  thought  after  reading  must  guide  application 
of  all  the  principles  of  structure  and  presentation  set  forth 
in  this  book.  Until,  then,  one  can  think  readily  and  take 
pleasure  in  thinking,  argumentation  cannot  be  mastered 
nor  individual  style  acquired.  This  personal  note  in  style 
which  comes,  not  from  artificial  tricks  of  phrase  or  acquired 
mannerisms,  but  as  a  result  of  the  reaction  of  an  individual 
mind  and  temperament  on  reading,  cannot  be  too  strongly 
insisted  on.  With  students  of  composition,  style  is  too 
often  very  conscious ;  this  desired  personal  quality  comes 

1  LowelVs  Works.    Vol.  IV,  p.  197.    Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co.    1897. 


STYLE  IN  ARGUMENT— IMAGINATION  389 

not  when  sought  for  directly  but  as  the  inevitable  con- 
comitant of  good  thinking. 

The  second  quality  of  style,  imagination,  is  essential  in 
two  ways :  to  produce  in  the  speaker  sympathetic  under- 
standing of  events,  conditions,  and  emotions  treated,  and 
thus  kindle  connotative  speech ;  and  to  aid  the  speaker  so  to 
enter  into  the  moods  and  interests  of  his  audience  as  to  select 
the  words  which  will  produce  in  them  exactly  the  desired 
images,  thoughts,  or  moods.  Patrick  Henry,  when  among 
the  Virginia  mountaineers,  thought  to  please  them  by 
speaking  to  them  in  language  as  illiterate  as  their  own, 
only  to  learn  from  his  cool  reception  that  his  hearers 
resented  this  as  trickery  in  one  so  well  trained  as  he.  A 
literary  man  telling  some  friends  of  a  child  playing  about 
during  a  recent  afternoon  call  of  his  said :  "  Yes,  she 
sketched  herself  into  the  room  and  played  lambently  over 
the  furniture."  In  one  case  the  imagination  of  Henry 
played  him  false ;  in  the  other  the  man  spoke  only  to 
himself,  with  no  thought  of  the  probable  feeling  of  his 
hearers  for  his  words.  In  the  following  very  different 
selections  it  is  imagination,  stimulated  by  the  emotions, 
choosing  just  the  right  words,  which  not  only  conveys  to 
us  what  the  writer  felt  or  saw,  but  reproduces  his  mood 
in  us.  In  the  first  extract,  from  R.  B.  Sheridan's  impeach- 
ment of  Warren  Hastings,  imagination  provides  dialogue 
which  in  the  briefest  possible  space,  even  as  it  character- 
izes the  speakers,  sarcastically  paints  the  situation. 

A  number  of  friends  meet  together,  and  [Hastings],  know- 
ing (no  doubt)  that  the  accusation  of  the  Commons  had  been 
drawn  up  by  a  Committee,  thought  it  necessary,  as  a  point 
of  punctilio,  to  answer  it  by  a  Committee  also.  One  furnishes 
the  raw  material  of  fact,  the  second  spins  the  argument,  and 


390  •   PRESENTATION 

the  third  twines  up  the  conclusion,  while  Mr.  Hastings,  with 
a  master's  eye,  is  cheering  and  looking  over  this  loom.  He 
says  to  one,  "You  have  got  my  good  faith  in  your  hands  — 
you,  my  veracity  to  manage.  Mr.  Shore,  I  "hope  you  will 
make  me  a  good  financier  —  Mr.  Middleton,  you  have  my 
humanity  in  commission."  When  it  is  done,  he  brings  it  to 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  says,  "I  was  equal  to  the  task. 
I  knew  the  difficulties,  but  I  scorn  them :  here  is  the  truth, 
and  if  the  truth  will  convict  me,  I  am  content  myself  to  be 
the  channel  of  it ! "  His  friends  hold  up  their  heads,  and 
say,  "  What  noble  magnanimity !  This  must  be  the  effect 
of  conscious  and  real  innocence."  Well,  it  is  so  received,  it 
is  so  argued  upon  —  but  it  fails  of  its  effect. 

Then  says  Mr.  Hastings :  "  That  my  defence !  no,  mere 
journeyman-work  —  good  enough  for  the  Commons,  but  not 
fit  for  your  Lordships'  consideration."  He  then  calls  upon 
his  Counsel  to  save  him :  "  I  fear  none  of  my  accusers'  wit- 
nesses —  I  know  some  of  them  well  —  I  know  the  weakness 
of  their  memory,  and  the  strength  of  their  attachment  —  I 
fear  no  testimony  but  my  own  —  save  me  from  the  peril  of 
my  own  panegyric  —  preserve  me  from  that,  and  I  shall  be' 
safe."  Then  is  this  plea  brought  to  your  Lordships'  bar,  and 
Major  Scott  gravely  asserts, — that  Mr.  Hastings  did,  at  the 
bar  of  the  House  of  Commons,  vouch  for  facts  of  which  he 
was  ignorant,  and  for  arguments  which  he  had  never  read.1 

Contrast  this  accelerating  emotional  effect  from  Webster. 

He  has  done  the  murder.  No  eye  has  seen  him,  no  ear 
has  heard  him.  The  secret  is  his  own,  and  it  is  safe ! 

Ah!  Gentlemen,  that  was  a  dreadful  mistake.  Such  a 
secret  can  be  safe  nowhere.  The  whole  creation  of  God  has 
neither  nook  nor  corner  where  the  guilty  can  bestow  it,  and 
say  it  is  safe.  Not  to  speak  of  that  eye  which  pierces  through 
all  disguises,  and  beholds  everything  as  in  the  splendor  of 

1  See  Speeches  of  E.  B.  Sheridan,  Vol.  I,  p.  373.    Bohn.     1842. 


STYLE  IN  ARGUMENT  391 

noon,  such  secrets  of  guilt  are  never  safe  from  detection,  even 
by  men.  True  it  is,  generally  speaking,  that  "murder  will 
out."  True  it  is,  that  Providence  hath  so  ordained,  and 
doth  so  govern  things,  that  those  who  break  the  great  law  of 
Heaven  by  shedding  man's  blood,  seldom  succeed  in  avoid- 
ing discovery.  Especially,  in  a  case  exciting  so  much  atten- 
tion as  this,  discovery  must  come,  and  will  come,  sooner  or 
later.  A  thousand  eyes  turn  at  once  to  explore  every  man, 
every  thing,  every  circumstance,  connected  with  the  time  and 
place;  a  thousand  ears  catch  every  whisper;  a  thousand 
excited  minds  intensely  dwell  on  the  scene,  shedding  all  their 
light,  and  ready  to  kindle  the  slightest  circumstance  into  a 
blaze  of  discovery.  Meantime  the  guilty  soul  cannot  keep 
its  own  secret.  It  is  false  to  itself;  or  rather  it  feels  an 
irresistible  impulse  of  conscience  to  be  true  to  itself.  It 
labors  under  its  guilty  possession,  and  knows  not  what  to  do 
with  it.  The  human  heart  was  not  made  for  the  residence 
of  such  an  inhabitant.  It  finds  itself  preyed  on  by  a  torment, 
which  it  dares  not  acknowledge  to  God  or  man.  A  vulture 
is  devouring  it,  and  it  can  ask  no  sympathy  or  assistance, 
either  from  heaven  or  earth.  The  secret  which  the  murderer 
possesses  soon  comes  to  possess  him ;  and,  like  the  evil  spirits 
of  which  we  read,  it  overcomes  him,  and  leads  him  whither- 
soever it  will.  He  feels  it  beating  at  his  heart,  rising  to 
his  throat,  and  demanding  disclosure.  He  thinks  the  whole 
world  sees  it  in  his  face,  reads  it  in  his  eyes,  and  almost 
hears  its  workings  in  the  very  silence  of  his  thoughts.  It 
has  become  his  master.  It  betrays  his  discretion,  it  breaks 
down  his  courage,  it  conquers  his  prudence.  When  suspi- 
cions from  without  begin  to  embarrass  him,  and  the  net  of 
circumstance  to  entangle  him,  the  fatal  secret  struggles  with 
still  greater  violence  to  burst  forth.  It  must  be  confessed, 
it  will  be  confessed;  there  is  no  refuge  from  confession  but 
suicide,  and  suicide  is  confession.1 

1  Works  of  Daniel  Webster.    Vol.  VI,  pp.  53-54.     The  White  Murder 
Trial    Little,  Brown  &  Co.    1856. 


392  PRESENTATION 

Contrast  the  turbulent  irony  of  this  quotation  from  Victor 
Hugo's  Napoleon  le  Petit  with  the  dignity  and  the  pervasive 
music  of  the  peroration  of  Demosthenes  on  pp.  352-353. 

This  is  the  man  by  whom  France  is  governed !  Governed, 
do  I  say?  —  possessed  in  supreme  and  sovereign  sway !  And 
every  day,  and  every  morning,  by  his  decrees,  by  his  mes- 
sages, by  all  the  incredible  drivel  which  he  parades  in  the 
"  Moniteur,"  this  emigrant,  who  knows  not  France,  teaches 
France  her  lesson !  and  this  ruffian  tells  France  he  has  saved 
her !  And  from  whom  ?  From  herself !  Before  him,  Provi- 
dence committed  only  follies;  God  was  waiting  for  him  to 
reduce  everything  to  order ;  at  last  he  has  come !  For  thirty- 
six  years  there  had  been  in  France  all  sorts  of  pernicious 
things,  —  the  tribune,  a  vociferous  thing ;  the  press,  an 
obstreperous  thing;  thought,  an  insolent  thing,  and  liberty, 
the  most  crying  abuse  of  all.  But  he  came,  and  for  the 
tribune  he  has  substituted  the  Senate ;  for  the  press,  the  cen- 
sorship; for  thought,  imbecility;  and  for  liberty,  the  sabre; 
and  by  the  sabre  and  the  Senate,  by  imbecility  and  censor- 
ship, France  is  saved.  Saved,  bravo!  And  from  whom,  I 
repeat?  From  herself.  For  what  was  this  France  of  ours, 
if  you  please?  A  horde  of  marauders  and  thieves,  of  anar- 
chists, assassins,  and  demagogues.  She  had  to  be  manacled, 
had  this  mad  woman,  France;  and  it  is  Monsieur  Bonaparte 
Louis  who  puts  the  handcuffs  on  her.  Now  she  is  in  a  dun- 
geon, on  a  diet  of  bread  and  water,  punished,  humiliated, 
garroted,  safely  cared  for.  Be  not  disturbed ;  Monsieur  Bona- 
parte, a  policeman  stationed  at  the  Elysee,  is  answerable  for 
her  to  Europe.  He  makes  it  his  business  to  be  so;  this 
wretched  France  is  in  the  straight-jacket,  and  if  she  stirs  — 
Ah,  what  is  this  spectacle  before  our  eyes?  Is  it  a  dream? 
Is  it  a  nightmare  ?  On  one  side  a  nation,  the  first  of  nations, 
and  on  the  other,  a  man,  the  last  of  men ;  and  this  is  what 
this  man  does  to  this  nation.  What !  he  tramples  her  under 
his  feet,  he  laughs  in  her  face,  he  mocks  and  taunts  her,  he 


STYLE  IN  ARGUMENT— VOCABULARY  393 

disowns,  insults,  and  flouts  her!  What!  he  says,  "I  alone 
am  worthy  of  consideration!"  What!  in  this  land  of  France 
where  none  would  dare  to  slap  the  face  of  his  fellow,  this 
man  can  slap  the  face  of  the  nation  ?  Oh,  the  abominable 
shame  of  it  all !  Every  time  that  Monsieur  Bonaparte  spits, 
every  face  must  be  wiped !  And  this  can  last !  and  you  tell 
me  it  will  last !  No !  No !  by  every  drop  in  every  vein,  no ! 
It  shall  not  last!  Ah,  if  this  did  last,  it  would  be  in  very 
truth  because  there  would  no  longer  be  a  God  in  heaven,  nor 
a  France  on  earth!1 

When  one  notes  that  the  characterization,  the  irony, 
the  music,  the  dignity,  or  the  pathos  of  these  extracts  is 
contributed  by  certain  well-chosen  words  and  compares  the 
accurate,  copious,  and  evidently  responsive  vocabularies 
with  the  vocabularies  of  most  college  students,  one  is 
impelled  to  follow  Professor  Palmer  in  applying  Hobbes's 
description  of  his  State  of  Nature  to  students'  vocabularies, 
and  to  say  that  they  are  "  solitary,  poor,  nasty,  brutish 
and  short."2  What  is  needed  is  a  vocabulary  of  "accuracy, 
audacity,  and  range,"8  immediately  responsive  to  an  imagi- 
nation quickened  by  intense  individual  thinking  on  one's 
own  experience  or  the  thought  and  experience  of  others. 
To  try  to  develop  students'  vocabularies  before  they  have 
been  interested  in  thinking  for  its  own  sake  and  before 
their  imaginations  have  been  quickened  is  misleading  and 
futile.  Indeed,  the  chief  aim  of  this  book  is  not  to  teach 
the  principles  of  argumentation  for  their  own  sake,  but 
by  teaching  them  to  lure  students  into  habits  of  orderly 

1 A  Modern  Beader  and  Speaker.  George  Riddle,  pp.  243-245.  H.  S. 
Stone.  1900. 

2  Self-Cultivation  in  English.     G.  H.  Palmer,     p.  18.    T.  Y.  Crowell 
&  Co.    1897. 

3  Idem.    p.  12. 


394  PRESENTATION 

thinking,  on  a  basis  of  careful  investigation,  which  shall 
provide  a  background  of  thought  for  undergraduate  vocab- 
ularies. 

Modified  forms  of  argument.  Of  course,  argument  ap- 
pears in  many  forms  less  rigid  than  the  forensic.  That  is 
the  most  convenient  in  which  to  study  it  because,  in  the 
forensic,  argument  preponderates  as  compared  with  narra- 
tion or  description,  and  because  the  forensic  permits  search- 
ing criticism,  but  all  the  forms  of  public  address  may  use 
argument.  Therefore,  a  student  of  argumentation  must  not 
consider  himself  thoroughly  equipped  till  he  has  studied 
the  application  of  its  principles  as  they  are  called  for  in 
only  a  division  or  a  paragraph  of  these  other  forms  or  in 
special  conditions  of  audience  or  subject  in  which  the 
formal  methods  of  the  forensic  may  beneficially  be  relaxed.1 
Though  these  modified  forms  of  argument  may  best  be 
studied  by  themselves,  Debating,  which  to  a  large  extent 
is  but  the  oral  expression  of  a  forensic,  should  be  consid- 
ered here. 

EXERCISES 
Persuasion 

1.  Let  the  class,  either  as  a  written  exercise  or  orally,  analyze 
Beecher's  Speech  at  Liverpool,  p.  156  of  the  Specimens  of  Argumenta- 
tion, in  order  to  distinguish  persuasion  from  conviction  and  to  point 
out  the  methods  by  which  the  persuasion  is  gained.     In  connection 
with  this  exercise  use,  in  the  Forms  of  Public  Address,  p.  41,  Seward's 
letter  to  C.  F.  Adams.    President  Lincoln's  additions  and  omissions 
totally  change  the  persuasive  effect  of  the  letter. 

2.  Let  the  class,  in  or  out  of  the  class  room,  write  a  letter  of 
three  or  four  pages  of  theme  paper  to  a  college  friend  urging  him  to 

1  See  specimens  in  Forms  of  Public  Address,  especially  The  Scholar  in 
a  Republic,  Wendell  Phillips,  and  The  Leadership  of  Educated  Men,  G.  W. 
Curtis,  pp.  253  and  282.  H.  Holt  &  Co.  1904. 


EXERCISES  395 

room  with  the  writer  during  the  ensuing  year,  to  try  for  one  of  the 
athletic  teams,  or  to  canvass  for  some  college  cause,  in  a  word  for 
any  purpose  which  demands  persuasive  presentation.  In  writing, 
each  student  should  be  required  in  his  choice  of  central  persua- 
sive idea  and  his  use  of 'interests  and  characteristics  of  his  friend  to 
make  the  personality  of  the  friend  so  definite  that,  if  the  letter  is 
later  read  to  the  class,  the  friend  may  readily  be  described  by  any 
member. 

3.  Analyze  for  the  class  the  speech  of  Lord  Mansfield  in  behalf 
of  Allan  Evans,  Specimens  of  Argumentation,  p.  23,  that  it  may  see 
the  importance  of  order  in  persuasion. 

4.  In  order  to  illustrate  persuasion  arising  from  skillful  choice 
of  subject  or  message,  analyze  and  discuss  with  the  class  the  Speech 
at  Liverpool,  in  the  Specimens,  p.  156,  and  one  or  more  of  the  fol- 
lowing in  the  Forms  of  Public  Address:  Address  at  the  Atlanta  Expo- 
sition, Booker  T.  Washington,  p.  210 ;   Gettysburg  Speech,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  p.  207;    The  Puritan  Principle,  G.  W.  Curtis,  p.  430. 

5.  To  illustrate  persuasion  arising  from  the  speaker's  relation 
to  his  subject,  analyze  and  discuss  with  the  class  the  forensic  on  the 
Extermination  of  the  Gypsy  Moth  in  the  Appendix,  or  in  the  Forms  of 
Public  Address:  Farewell  Speech,  John  Brown,  p.  247;    The  Scholar 
in   a   Republic,  Wendell  Phillips,   p.  253 ;    On  Repeal  of  the   Union, 
Daniel  O'Connell,  p.  387. 

6.  To  illustrate  persuasion  arising  from  skillful  adaptation   of 
the  material  to  a  particular  audience,  analyze  and  discuss  with  the 
class  from  the  same  book:  Fourth  of  July  Address,  Phillips  Brooks, 
p.  185  ;  Letter  to  Napoleon,  Mrs.  Browning,  p.  23  ;    The  Child  and 
the  State,  D.  D.  Field,  p.  310,  contrasting  its  approach  to  a  common 
subject  with  the  treatment  in  the  Address  in  behalf  of  the  Children's 
Aid  Society,  Phillips  Brooks,  p.  319  ;  or  use  the  First  Letter  of  Junius, 
the  speech  of  Lord  Chatham  on  Removing  the  Troops  from  Boston, 
pp.  42  and  88  of  the  Specimens ;  or  in  the  Appendix  the  Argument 
for  Pension  Reform  or  A  New  Plea  on  an  Old  Subject. 

7.  For  specimens  of  excitation  see  the  references  given  under 
D  on  p.  439  of  the  Forms  of  Public  Address,  or  the  following  places 
in  the  Specimens:  last  paragraph,  p.  20;  p.  37  to  p.  39,  line  8;  p.  90 
to  p.  91,  line  13 ;  p.  177,  line  28,  to  p.  178,  line  14. 

8.  Name   some   college  topic   of  strong  momentary  interest  to 
undergraduates.    Describe  a  gathering  of  alumni  who  graduated  at 


396  PRESENTATION 

least  ten  years  since  and  who  are  not  well  informed  as  to  present 
undergraduate  life  and  may  not  be  in  hearty  sympathy  with  it  on 
this  question.  Ask  the  class  to  write  a  speech  of  five  to  ten  minutes 
which  will  interest  this  audience  in  the  topic  named  and  if  possible 
cause  them  to  take  some  action  in  regard  to  it.  The  desired  action 
should  be  clearly  stated  to  the  class,  or  each  student  should  be 
required  to  make  evident  in  his  work  the  action  he  wishes  to  produce. 
For  the  topic  and  audience  suggested  may  be  substituted  a  talk  of 
similar  length  to  boys  in  the  student's  own  preparatory  school  on 
something  in  college  life  on  which  sub-freshmen  may  be  supposed 
to  be  uninformed  or  to  think  differently  from  the  best  undergraduate 
opinion. 

9.  Analyze  for  the  class  either  or  both  of  the  speeches  of  G.  W. 
Curtis —  The  Puritan  Principle,  Forms  of  Public  Address,  p.  430  ;  The 
Leadership  of  Educated  Men,  Idem,  p.  282  — in  order  to  illustrate  the 
value  of  concreteness,  of  narration  and  description,  in  persuasion. 
Compare  with  these  the  forensics  in  the  Appendix  on  Reform  of  the 
Pension  System  and  on  Extermination  of  the  Gypsy  Moth. 

10.  Ask  the  class  to  choose  an  audience  for  which  to  rewrite  their 
last  piece  of  argumentation.  Let  them  select  if  possible  an  audience 
known  to  them,  not  purely  imaginary.  Require  them  to  state  their 
own  relation  to  the  occasion  and  the  subject,  that  is,  why  they  are 
asked  to  speak  on  the  topic,  by  whom,  and  under  what  conditions 
as  to  hall,  time  allowance,  and  other  speakers  on  the  same  or  dif- 
ferent subjects.  Let  them  describe  the  audience  —  its  knowledge  of 
the  subject,  supposed  interest  in  it,  habitudes  of  mind,  and  relation 
to  speaker.  These  papers  should  be  examined  and  returned  to  the 
class  with  comment.  Next  ask  the  class  to  go  over  the  briefs  for 
the  last  argument,  noting  each  place  at  which  there  are  persuasive 
advantages  or  disadvantages  to  be  considered,  in  what  these  consist, 
and  how  they  will  be  dealt  with  by  the  student  in  his  rewritten  argu- 
ment. Insist  that  each  student  shall  weave  a  unifying  persuasive 
main  idea  into  the  work.  Require  special  care  as  to  opening  and 
closing  the  rewritten  argument,  but  make  clear  that  the  persuasion 
must  pervade  the  argument,  not  merely  appear  at  the  start  and  the 
finish.  Examine  these  annotated  briefs,  comment  upon  them,  and 
then  require  the  class  to  write  from  them,  when  revised,  an  address 
for  the  given  audience. 


EXERCISES  397 


Rhetoric  of  Argument 

1.  Ask  the  class  to  take  one  of  their  former  introductions  and 
one  of  their  perorations  and  consider  how  they  may  be  improved 
according  to  the  suggestions  of  Chapter  V  in  regard  to  introduc- 
tions and  perorations.    Let  them  write  out  in  the  class  room  the 
result  of  their  thinking.    This  exercise  may  be  separated,  of  course, 
into  an  exercise  on  the  introduction  and  another  on  the  peroration. 

2.  Consider  with  the  class  one  or  more  rigid  and  formal  foren- 
sics,  showing  how  by  the  steps  treated  in  Chapter  V  they  could  be 
given  ease  and  movement.    Contrast  from  the  Appendix  the  forensic 
on  the  pension  system  or  A  New  Plea  on  an  Old  Subject  with  the 
forensics  on  the  increase  of  the  army  and  on  the  Russian  question. 

3.  For  the  value  of  style  in  persuasion  discuss  in  the  Forms  of 
Public  Address:  T.  B.  Aldrich's  letter  to  William  Winter,  p.  22; 
S.  Johnson's  letter  to  Lord  Chesterfield,  p.  19 ;   The  Leadership  of 
Educated  Men,  G.  W.  Curtis,  p.  282. 


CHAPTER   VI 
DEBATING 

Debating  is,  for  the  most  part,  but  oral  application  of 
the  principles  of  analysis,  structure,  evidence,  and  presen- 
tation already  carefully  explained  in  this  book;  often, 
indeed,  it  is  very  largely  a  repetition  of  what  has  been 
written  in  accordance  with  those  principles.  The  differ- 
ences between  speaking  and  writing,  however,  make  a  few 
additional  principles  necessary.  Often,  too,  these  differ- 
ences render  a  ready  writer  ineffective  unless  he  can  exactly 
repeat  what  he  has  written  and  committed  to  memory. 
For  this  reason  it  is  also  helpful  to  consider  what  are  the 
errors  common  to  inexperienced  debaters,  from  choice  of 
topic  to  final  rebuttal,  and  how  they  may  be  avoided. 
The  common  faults  in  debating  arise  from  four  sources : 
incomplete  preparation,  due  to  laziness  or  haste;  unwill- 
ingness to  cooperate  as  one  of  a  team  of  two  or  more  and 
desire  to  display  one's  own  abilities  without  regard  for 
one's  colleagues ;  ignorance  of  the  principles  underlying 
rebuttal;  and  forgetfulness  of  the  fact  that  no  speech  is 
really  effective  which  does  not  influence  its  audience. 

Choice  of  topic.  In  the  first  place,  topics,  whether  for 
intercollegiate  contests  or  class  debates,  should  be  chosen 
much  more  carefully  than  they  often  are.  The  desidera- 
tum is  not  any  debatable  question,  nor  one  which  gives 
the  affirmative  or  the  negative  an  advantage,  and  least  of 


CHOICE  OF  TOPIC  .    399 

all  is  it  a  question  which  involves  some  trap  for  oppo- 
nents. The  last  is  unpardonable,  for  what  is  wanted  is  a 
two-sided  question  which  will  give  each  group  of  speakers 
a  chance  under  approximately  equal  conditions  to  show 
what  it  can  do  evidentially  and  persuasively  with  a  defi- 
nite case.  Avoid,  then,  those  questions  on  which  it  is 
practically  impossible  to  reach  any  final  decision.  Our 
old-fashioned  debating  clubs  were  curiously  fond  of  them. 
For .  instance,  if  a  class  try  to  discuss  the  proposition 
"  Women  are  illogical,"  the  result  will  probably  be  citation 
by  one  side  of  cases  of  illogicality  in  women,  and  by  the 
other  of  cases  of  logicality.  It  can  be  conclusively  shown 
that  some  women  are  logical  and  that  some  are  not,  but 
the  evidence  for  all  women  cannot  be  gathered.  There- 
fore, any  decision  must  be  a  qualified  one ;  for  instance, 
that  in  the  cases  shown,  logicality  or  the  opposite  prevails  ; 
but  that  is  not  exactly  the  answer  desired  for  the  proposi- 
tion. Of  course,  trained  psychologists  might  discuss  the 
nature  of  the  female  mind,  but  college  undergraduates  are 
not  trained  psychologists  and  are  nearly  certain  to  go  to 
pieces  if  they  enter  upon  such  a  treatment  of  the  question. 
Another  question  on. which  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to 
get  other  evidence  than  one's  own  experience  is,  "Do 
people  always  admire  in  others  the  qualities  they  them- 
selves lack  ?  "  So  general  a  proposition  cannot  be  estab- 
lished or  refuted  by  the  comparatively  few  witnesses  with 
whom  a  speaker  can  talk  on  the  subject,  and  it  is  very  dif- 
ficult to  find  printed  testimony  on  the  matter.  In  choos- 
ing a  question,  then,  consider  carefully  the  probability  that 
evidence  is  accessible,  in  print,  through  interviews,  or  from 
one's  own  thinking.  Avoid  also  topics  that  produce  little 
except  haggling  over  definitions.  For  instance,  in  "  Great 


400  DEBATING 

poets  are  always  good  men"  we  must  first  determine  our 
standards  of  greatness  and  of  goodness.  Granted  those,  it 
will  not  be  difficult  to  settle  the  question.  But  discussions 
made  up  wholly  of  defining  are  likely  to  lead  to  hairsplit- 
ting, and  are  nearly  certain  to  lack  life.  Again,  avoid 
topics  which  in  the  last  resort  can  be  made  conclusive  only 
for  certain  temperaments,  that  is,  which  rest  more  on  per- 
suasion than  on  conviction.  For  instance,  how  can  we 
prove  for  the  world  at  large  or  even  for  all  members  of  a 
large  audience  that  "  Letter- writing  in  general  is  a  waste 
of  time  "  ?  All  depends  upon  one's  aims  in  life  and  one's 
means  and  leisure.  It  may  be  proved  that  for  those  with 
leisure  who  chiefly  desire  pleasant  friendships  this  sort 
of  letter-writing  is  admirable,  but  that  for  busy  men  and 
women  it  is  an  unjustifiable  waste  of  energy  needed  else- 
where. That  is,  the  force  of  the  conclusion  will  largely 
depend  upon  the  interests,  the  emotions,  the  habitudes  of 
the  hearer,  not  on  his  logical  sense.  Select,  too,  topics 
which  can  be  treated  in  the  time  allowed  for  the  debate. 
Many  questions  of  the  day  are  hydra-headed.  The  com- 
mon topic,  "Should  Immigration  be  further  restricted?" 
involves  at  least  two  subjects  large  enough  for  a  debate : 
"  Should  Immigration  be  further  restricted,  and  if  so, 
by  what  plan?"  When  students  try  to  treat  both  they 
are  likely  to  be  superficial  on  each.  It  is  probably  bet- 
ter to  discuss  either  the  need  of  further  restriction,  waiv- 
ing discussion  of  any  plan  of  betterment;  or,  with  the 
need  of  restriction  granted  by  both  sides,  to  consider  the 
relative  merits  of  two  plans  or  the  merits  and  demerits 
of  one  plan.  The  purpose  of  debating  is  not  to  talk 
for  two  hours,  nor  in  that  time  to  talk  on  as  many  sub- 
jects as  possible,  but  for  each  side  within  that  space  of 


CHOICE  OF  TOPIC  401 

time  to  show  skill  in  presenting  persuasively  on  a  well- 
analyzed  case  a  careful  selection  from  the  evidence  access- 
ible for  its  views  and  against  those  of  its  opponent.  The 
present  tendency,  in  submitting  questions,  to  narrow  .them 
by  restrictive  clauses  such  as,  "  It  being  granted,"  "  Waiv- 
ing the  question  whether,"  is  a  result  of  many  rambling 
and  superficial  discussions  in  the  past  arising  from  ques- 
tions too  inclusively  phrased.  It  is  doubtless  wise  to  let 
beginners  in  debate  choose  time-worn  topics,  such  as  gov- 
ernmental control  of  railroads,  popular  election  of  senators, 
etc.,  for  so  much  material  lies  ready  to  their  hands  that 
they  can  give  their  attention  to  selecting  and  presenting 
their  evidence,  but  to  continue  using  this  kind  of  subject 
is  to  deprive  a  student  of  training  in  an  essential  of  argu- 
mentation, skill  in  discovering  evidence  from  other  people 
and  from  one's  own  thought.  As  a  rule,  reasonably  fresh 
topics,  the  really  current  questions  of  the  day  on  which 
public  opinion  is  still  forming,  are  the  best  training.  Use 
the  negative  phrasing  with  caution,  that  is :  "  It  is  not  for 
the  best  interests  of  the  United  States  to  builcl  the  canal 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama."  Usually  this  phrasing, 
turning  affirmative  into  negative  and  negative  into  affirma- 
tive, leads  before  the  end  of  the  debate  to  double  negatives 
and  to  confusion  in  the  minds  of  the  audience.  Of  course, 
in  rare  cases  in  which  the  affirmative  case  is  clearly  very 
difficult  as  compared  with  that  of  the  negative,  it  is  but 
fair  by  this  phrasing  to  relieve  the  affirmative  at  the  out- 
set of  the  burden  of  proof,  transferring  it  to  the  side  bet- 
ter able  to  sustain  it.  One  tendency  in  phrasing,  much 
fostered  by  intercollegiate  debating,  to  select  questions  in 
which  the  negative  need  only  show  that  the  proposition  of 
the  affirmative  does  not  hold  good,  but  need  itself  support 


402  DEBATING 

no  case  of  its  own,  is  not  productive  of  the  best  training 
in  argument.  This  leads  to  overestimating  the  value  of 
rebuttal  in  debate,  with  the  result  that  often  speakers 
skillful  in  rebuttal  fail  utterly  when  forced  to  support  a 
constructive  case.  Would  it  not  be  much  better,  both  in 
class  and  intercollegiate  debates,  to  find  questions  which 
oblige  both  sides  to  work  both  destructively  and  construct- 
ively? Any  comparative  question  does  this. 

Burden  of  proof.  Much  controversy  in  phrasing  ques- 
tions arises  from  confusion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words 
"  burden  of  proof,"  each  team  of  debaters  being  eager  to 
throw  that  mysterious  responsibility  on  the  other.  "In 
legal  discussion,  this  phrase  is  used  in  several  ways.  It 
marks  (1)  The  peculiar  duty  of  him  who  has  the  risk  of 
any  given  proposition  on  which  parties  are  at  issue, — who 
will  lose  the  case  if  he  does  not  make  that  proposition 
out,  when  all  has  been  said  and  done.  ...  (2)  It  stands 
for  the  duty..  .  .  of  going  forward  in  argument  or  in  pro- 
ducing evidence ;  whether  at  the  beginning  of  a  case  or 
at  any  later  moment  throughout  the  trial  or  the  discussion. 
(3)  There  is  an  undiscriminated  use  of  the  phrase,  perhaps 
more  common  than  either  of  the  other  two,  in  which  it  may 
mean  either  or  both  of  the  others."1  That  is,  in  the  first 
sense,  he  who  asserts  must  prove,  and  till  he  has  finally 
made  good  his  main  proposition  he  is  not  permanently 
free  from  the  burden  of  proof;  but  in  the  second  sense 
this  burden  shifts  at  each  point  in  a  discussion  in  which 
the  asserter  establishes  a  presumption  in  favor  of  his 
view,  —  only  to  shift  back  again  if  his  opponent  success- 
fully breaks  down  this  presumption.  For  instance,  in  the 

1  Law  of  Evidence.  J.  B.  Thayer.  p.  335.  Cited  in  The  Art  oj 
Debate.  R.  M.  Alden.  pp.  65-66. 


BURDEN  OF  PKOOF  403 

topic  "  Is  the  Elective  System  a  failure  ?  "  the  burden  of 
proof  in  the  first  sense  is  on  him  who  maintains  the  affirma- 
tive and  is  not  permanently  thrown  off  till  he  has  estab- 
lished the  truth  of  his  view  in  the  face  of  opposing  evi- 
dence. In  the  second  sense,  he  may  rid  himself  of  the 
burden  for  the  moment  by  showing  that  educators  who 
originally  favored  the  elective  system  have  recently  declared 
against  it.  The  burden  is  now  on  his  opponents  to  show 
cause  why  this  testimony  shall  not  be  held  to  establish  a 
strong  presumption  against  the  system.  But  if  the  nega- 
tive side  can  show  prejudicial  circumstances  working  on 
these  witnesses  or  can  produce  equally  good  or  better  wit- 
nesses to  speak  heartily  in  favor  of  the  system,  the  burden 
of  proof  is  thrown  back.  That  is,  rebuttal  is  a  recognition 
of  an  attempt  to  shift  the  burden  of  proof  and  an  endeavor 
to  block  the  effort.1  If  students  would  remember  that  no 
amount  of  trickery  or  haggling  can  change  the  fact  that  he 
who  asserts  must  prove  and  by  asserting  takes  upon  him- 
self the  burden  of  proof  in  the  first  sense,  and  that  at  any 
point  in  a  debate  the  position  of  the  burden  of  proof  in  the 
second  sense  is  perfectly  ascertainable  if  one  notes  which 
side  would  be  defeated  if  the  discussion  were  broken  off 
at  the  point  in  question,  they  would  save  themselves  use- 
less labor,  some  bad  temper,  and  considerable  bad  taste. 
Usually,  of  course,  from  the  phrasing  of  questions  the 
burden  of  proof  in  the  first  sense  is  on  the  affirmative,  but 
it  is  possible  to  throw  it  on  the  side  that  would  naturally 
be  the  negative  by  introducing  a  not  into  the  topic.  In 
the  second  sense,  however,  no  phrasing  whatever  can  pre- 
vent the  burden  from  shifting  with  the  course  of  the  debate 

1  Even   anticipatory  rebuttal   aims  to  block  a  prospective   effort  to 
stop  a  shifting  of  the  burden  of  proof. 


404  DEBATING 

until  the  affirmative  is  finally  freed  from  it  by  proving 
the  truth  of  the  proposition  or  is  forced  to  accept  it  for 
good  and  all  by  the  stronger  case  of  the  negative.  To  sum 
up :  "  The  burden  of  proof  is,  in  the  first  place,  the  obliga- 
tion resting  on  the  affirmative  to  prove  the  proposition  it 
lays  down  at  the  outset,  —  an  obligation  which  it  never 
escapes,  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  obligation  of  either 
disputant  to  produce  proof  at  any  moment  when,  in  the 
absence  of  such  proof,  the  other  side  would  be  judged  to 
be  in  the  right.  In  a  word,  it  is  simply  the  demand  of  the 
audience:  Show  your  proof  if  we  are  to  believe."1 

The  value  of  a  preliminary  conference.  Much  of  this 
unintelligent  struggling  to  shift  the  burden  of  proof  and 
all  haggling  about  definition  of  terms  will  be  obviated  if  a 
conference  of  the  debaters  precedes  the  discussion.  It  is 
but  natural  when  two  groups  of  debaters  meet  without  any 
preceding  agreement  as  to  what  may  be  taken,  as  admitted 
facts  in  the  case  and  the  interpretation  of  the  question, 
that  each  side  should  struggle  to  base  the  discussion  on 
the  interpretation  of  the  question  which  makes  the  case 
easiest  for  it  to  treat.  Sometimes  this  struggle  is  without 
issue  and  blocks  the  debate  proper  ;  more  often  it  post- 
pones that  discussion  till  it  must  be  inadequate  for  lack  of 
time.  Whatever  be  thought  of  the  practicability,  before 
intercollegiate  debates,  of  a  preliminary  conference  to  deter- 
mine the  introductory  matter,  that  is,  the  steps  in  analysis 
leading  to  the  issues  and  including  them,  experience  shows 
that  such  a  conference  is  practically  indispensable  as  a  pre- 
liminary to  class  debates. 

Attitude  of  conferees  in  this  conference.  The  purpose 
of  class  debates  is  training  in  the  essentials  of  public 

1  The  Art  of  Debate.    R.  M.Alden.    pp.  75-76.    H.  Holt  &  Co.    1900. 


ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  COLLEAGUE  405 

discussion  ;  the  purpose  of  the  preliminary  conference  is  to 
find  common  ground  which  shall  provide  a  relatively  equal 
task  for  each  side  in  finding  evidence  and  in  selecting  it 
and  presenting  it  for  a  definite  audience.  Therefore,  there 
is  no  reason  why  the  attitude  of  the  two  sides  in  the  con- 
ference should  be  one  of  mutual  suspicion.  Nor  should 
each  side  be  eager  to  lay  traps  for  the  other.  It  is  unpar- 
donable to  hold  back  information  at  the  conference  which 
when  used  hi  the  introduction  to  the  debate  itself  is  sure 
to  change  wholly  the  plan  agreed  on.  Such  work  is  shy- 
stering,  not  debating.  No  man  is  obliged  in  the  con- 
ference to  betray  just  how  he  means  to  treat  the  issues,  in 
what  order,  or  with  what  evidence,  but  on  his  understand- 
ing of  the  meaning  of  the  question  he  should  be  frank 
and  complete  in  statement.  In  establishing  the  issues 
through  the  history  of  the  question,  including  the  clash  in 
opinion,  the  two  sides  should  usually  find  little  reason  for 
cautious  movement.  The  need  for  care  comes  in  deter- 
mining what  in  the  broad  clash  may  be  regarded  as 
admitted,  granted,  waived,  or  extraneous,  not  because 
either  side  is  trying  to  catch  the  other,  but  because  unless 
one  knows  exactly  what  in  all  its  detail  is  the  case  one 
wishes  to  develop  in  the  argument  itself  and  watches 
warily,  matter  will  slip  in  or  be  excluded  under  one  or 
more  of  these  divisions  which  will  later  complicate  or  par- 
tially block  the  case  one  wishes  to  present.  The  impor- 
tant point  to  remember,  however,  is  that  skill  in  debate 
consists  not  in  getting  some  advantage  of  one's  opponent 
in  the  introduction,  but  in  the  presentation  of  one's  views 
on  the  question  as  determined  in  that  conference. 

Attitude  towards  colleague.    The  preceding  chapters  of 
this  book  should  have  proved  that  no  lazy  or  hasty  worker 


406  DEBATING 

can  hope  for  any  sustained  success  in  debate,  since  it  rests 
on  completeness  of  preparation.  Occasionally,  however,  a 
debater  shirks  till  the  last  moment,  depending  for  his 
supply  of  material  on  the  good  nature  of  his  colleague 
and  on  his  facility  of  speech  and  ease  on  the  platform  to 
carry  him  through  the  debate  successfully.  The  unfair- 
ness of  this  to  the  colleague  needs  no  comment.  Usually 
the  proceeding,  however,  brings  its  own  punishment,  for 
debates  in  the  course  of  which  nothing  changes  any  of  the 
prearranged  details  of  treatment  are  very  rare.  Mobility 
thus  becomes  one  of  the  essentials  of  debating,  but  he  who 
knows  only  that  part  of  the  case  on  which  he  expects  to 
speak  is  helpless  if  for  any  reason  his  colleague  is  obliged 
to  leave  some  part  of  the  case  untreated,  expecting  him 
to  take  it  up.  In  the  properly  equipped  team  each  man 
should  be  able  to  speak  on  any  part  of  the  case.  This 
power  he  should,  if  possible,  acquire  by  shifting  parts 
before  the  debate.  High  specialization  is  not  the  desidera- 
tum in  debating,  but  such  preparation  by  each  speaker  that 
he  can  fill  in  any  gaps  left  by  a  colleague  through  inad- 
vertence or  the  necessity  of  putting  more  time  than  was 
planned  for  on  some  part  of  his  case.  Each  member  of  a 
team  should  know  his  own  part  of  the  case,  that  of  the 
colleague  or  colleagues,  and  as  far  as  possible  that  of  his 
opponents.  Even  debaters  who  recognize  the  importance 
of  preparing  thoroughly  on  their  own  part  of  the  case  and 
on  that  part  of  their  opponents'  which  touches  their  own, 
neglect  the  case  of  their  colleagues  and  the  corresponding 
portions  of  the  opponents'  case.  A  speaker's  knowledge 
of  his  colleagues'  case  is  sure  to  betray  itself  in  the  course 
of  his  speech,  for  in  proper  debating  he  must  in  open- 
ing consider  the  effect  of  the  just  preceding  words  of  his 


ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  COLLEAGUE  407 

opponent  on  the  ideas  advanced  by  the  colleague  who  spoke 
first.  If  he  merely  refers  to  the  proof  of  his  colleague  as 
"  untouched  "  or  as  "  still  significant,"  he  probably  knows 
too  little  of  it  to  be  able  to  reemphasize  its  value  properly. 
If  he  is  well  prepared  he  will  make  his  hearers  see  in  a  swift 
comparative  summary  of  the  argument  of  the  opponent  in 
relation  to  the  ideas  advanced  by  his  colleague  the  superi- 
ority of  the  evidence  of  the  latter.  Moreover,  the  speech 
of  each  debater  has  some  relations,  even  as  it  develops, 
to  the  work  of  his  colleagues,  and  a  properly  equipped 
speaker  will  bring  these  out;  the  inadequately  prepared 
speaker  neglects  them.  Ability  to  shift  quickly,  going 
into  details  where  detail  has  not  been  planned  for,  drop- 
ping matter  because  the  opposing  side  has  evidently 
decided  not  to  put  emphasis  where  it  was  expected,  filling 
out  part  of  the  work  of  a  colleague,  all  this  desirable 
mobility  depends  not  only  on  preparedness  on  the  whole 
case  but  on  independence  of  a  memorized  speech.  Write 
out  and  commit  your  speech  if  you  wish,  but  come  to  the 
platform  prepared  to  treat  the  set  speech  merely  as  a  form 
on  which  to  place  whatever  in  phrase  or  thought  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  particular  debate  may  demand.  It  is  unfor- 
tunate when  a  speaker  flounders  through  two  or  three 
minutes  of  opening  rebuttal  to  change  suddenly  to  sure 
and  effective  movement  merely  because  he  has  at  last  got 
to  his  prepared  speech,  which  is  markedly  free  from  any 
mention  of  the  ideas  he  has  just  been  cumbersomely  trying 
to  rebut.  Write  out  your  speech,  if  you  like,  to  make 
sure  that  it  comes  within  the  time  limits,  is  phrased  so 
that  it  delivers  easily,  is  tellingly  expressed  in  places,  and 
uses  illustrations  you  wish  to  employ,  but  don't  feel  that 
you  must  give  it  exactly  as  written  or  go  to  pieces.  Come 


408  DEBATING 

to  the  debate  with  a  brief  outline  of  what  you  have  written, 
with  perhaps  a  note  or  two  of  the  illustrations  or  evidence 
to  be  used  at  particular  points,  and  with  the  speech  well 
in  mind.  Then  use  as  much  of  the  speech  as  conditions 
permit,  but  in  any  case  make  it  fit  the  moment,  using,  not 
neglecting,  special  opportunities  of  the  discussion. 

Unity  in  each  side  of  case.  But  all  this  flexibility  and 
mobility  must  work  for  a  unified  presentation  of  each  side 
of  the  case.  Not  only  should  each  speech  connect  with 
that  of  a  preceding  colleague,  but  it  should  lead  into  the 
next  speech  for  the  same  side.  Moreover,  much  effect  is 
often  gained  by  emphasizing  one  or  two  ideas  at  the  start 
as  central  in  the  case,  and  constantly  keeping  those  before 
the  audience  as  the  speeches  for  this  side  develop.  This 
is  frequently  done  in  rebuttal,  —  the  negative  pointing  out 
that  if  certain  ideas  are  made  good  the  case  of  the  affirma- 
tive fails,  and  then  in  the  succeeding  speeches  constantly 
bringing  out  that  evidence  produced  shows  this  failure. 
The  case  for  each  side  should  then  be,  not  blocks  of  debate 
ing,  but  a  rope,  in  which  one  or  more  strands  should  in 
some  way  be  made  conspicuous. 

Progression  in  debate.  Though  a  debate  must  often  lin- 
ger for  reconsideration  of  a  point,  to  replace  the  question, 
or  for  other  justifiable  cause,  it  should,  in  the  speech  of 
each  contestant,  definitely  progress  toward  its  conclusion. 
Nor  should  the  audience  ever  be  left  in  doubt  as  to  just 
what  progress  has  been  made  by  a  given  speaker.  A 
debater's  task  is  not  merely  to  kill  time,  to  repeat  what  a 
colleague  has  said,  or  slightly  to  amplify  that,  but  to  push 
ahead  the  case  for  his  side  by  readjustment,  reemphasis, 
and  well-selected  proof  on  which  he  lets  the  audience  see 
him  thinking  cogently.  Do  not,  therefore,  overcrowd  your 


UNITY  OF  THE  WHOLE   DEBATE  409 

speech  with  facts,  trusting  that  your  audience  will  see 
their  value  for  the  issues  in  the  case.  Remember  that  any 
audience  is  much  more  influenced  by  cogent  thinking  on  a 
few  well-selected  facts  than  by  any  amount  of  facts  whose 
value  they  are  not  shown  or  which  are  so  numerous  that 
they  confuse.  The  aim  should  not  be  "  How  much  evi- 
dence can  I  pour  out  before  this  audience?"  but  "What 
is  the  smallest  number  of  the  many  pieces  of  evidence  in 
my  possession  which,  when  presented  so  as  to  show  my 
thought  in  regard  to  them,  will  convince  ?  " 

Unity  of  the  whole  debate.  Due  emphasis  in  the  whole 
debate  cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  on,  for  often  two 
sets  of  speakers  who  start  from  a  set  of  issues  acceptable 
to  both  develop  a  case  on  which  much  conflicting  evi- 
dence is  cited,  but  the  affirmative  emphasizes  one  of  the 
issues  particularly  and  the  negative  another.  As  was 
pointed  out  in  treating  proof,  evidence  must  be  handled  in 
relation  to  the  evidence  of  one's  opponent,  and  in  treating 
a  question  involving  several  issues  it  is  not  enough  to 
prove  one  or  more  sound  or  unsound.  The  question  is 
whether  what  is  proved  on  one  side  disposes  of  what  is 
proved  on  the  other.  It  may  perfectly  well  be  that  one  or 
more  of  the  issues  are  really  of  secondary  value  as  compared 
with  the  others.  For  instance,  in  a  debate  on  a  bill  for  the 
exclusion  of  the  Chinese,  the  negative  contended  that  the 
bill  "damages  American  interests  in  the  Philippine  Islands 
by  excluding  Chinese  laborers  who  are  necessary  for  the 
development  of  the  Islands  ;  that  the  law  is  loose  and  weak ; 
that  it  is  unduly  harsh ;  that  the  harshness  of  the  law  has 
been  detrimental  to  American  trade  in  China  in  the  past 
j  and  will  be  more  detrimental  in  the  future."  The  speakers, 
however,  put  their  probative  emphasis  on  the  second  and 


410  DEBATING 

the  third  of  these  contentions,  while  the  affirmative  replied 
particularly  to  the  first  and  the  fourth.  A  little  thought 
will  show  that  the  latter  are  much  more  important,  and  if 
the  affirmative  speakers  had  but  shown  in  their  rebuttal  that 
the  negative  could  not  dispose  of  the  question  merely  by 
establishing  the  truth  of  the  second  and  the  third  ideas, 
but  must  first  prove  the  truth  of  the  other  two,  a  discussion 
which  moved  on  parallel  lines  would  have  been  given  unity, 
for  the  negative  must  either  have  met  the  contention  or 
have  admitted  its  truth  by  failing  to  reply  and  so  suffering 
defeat. 

Rebuttal  in  debating.  Indeed  it  is  in  rebuttal,  particu- 
larly in  the  openings  or  the  closings  of  the  regular  speeches, 
that  unity  both  for  a  side  and  for  the  case  as  a  whole  may 
readily  be  brought  about,  for  it  is  particularly  at  those 
points  that  a  speaker  relates  his  own  work  and  that  for  his 
side  to  the  other  side.  Rebuttal  may  be  said  to  be  the  life 
of  debate,  for  it  links  part  with  part,  brings  the  immediate 
and  the  unexpected  into  relation  with  the  prearranged, 
keeps  a  discussion  from  going  off  on  secondary  issues,  and 
places  emphasis  correctly.  As  we  have  seen,  preparedness, 
selection,  and  emphasis  are  three  essentials  of  refutation, 
and  at  this  point,  for  debating,  a  fourth  should  be  added, 
mobility,  the  ability,  as  already  explained,  to  shift  effect- 
ively to  meet  the  exigencies  of  debate.  A  great  part  of  the 
success  of  the  German  army  in  the  Franco-Prussian  War 
has  been  attributed  to  the  care  used  to  keep  officers  and 
their  aids  informed  as  to  the  nature  of  the  country  in 
which  they  were  maneuvering  their  troops.  The  officer  in 
command,  whenever  a  body  of  German  soldiery  moved  to  a 
new  position,  at  once  summoned  his  under  officers,  and  with 
a  map  of  the  country  spread  out  on  the  floor,  quizzed  them 


ARBITRARY  AND  SCATTERING  REBUTTAL       411 

as  to  the  names  of  the  surrounding  villages  and  hamlets, 
roads  running  out  of  the  town,  crossroads,  and  the  points 
of  vantage  and  of  special  danger,  —  in  a  word,  as  to  the 
military  topography  of  the  region.  When  the  lesson  was 
over,  the  officers  were  sent  to  their  posts.  Yet  even  all 
this  preparation  must  at  times  have  proved  worthless,  if 
the  officers  could  not  swiftly  throw  their  men  from  one 
position  to  another  in  order  to  repel  an  attack  at  a  point 
at  which  it  had  been  decided  that  the  enemy  was  unlikely 
to  attack.  Preparedness  is  an  essential  of  refutation,  but 
the  power  to  use  one's  information  without  rigidity,  with 
mobility,  is  equally  important. 

Arbitrary  and  scattering  rebuttal.  In  rebuttal  untrained 
debaters  often  pick  out  at  random  one  or  more  of  the  ideas 
advanced  against  them  and  confine  their  answer  to  these. 
Such  arbitrary  selection  is  weakening  to  one's  case.  Let 
the  audience  see  that  you  have  followed  so  closely  the 
development  of  the  discussion  to  any  given  point  that  you 
are  perfectly  aware  of  all  that  has  been  said  against  your 
case  ;  but  if  extraneous  matter  has  been  thrust  in,  or  mat- 
ter which  can  be  granted  or  waived,  or  if  some  of  the  ideas 
are  subordinate  to  others  and  so  must  fall  if  the  latter  are 
refuted,  make  these  facts  clear  by  swift  summarizing  analy- 
sis of  the  case  to  the  point  at  which  you  take  it  up.  Then 
you  can  proceed  with  your  refutation  sure,  if  you  succeed 
in  establishing  the  truth  of  your  answer,  that  you  have 
really  done  more,  namely,  swept  away  the  opposition  thus 
far  of  your  opponents. 

Again,  do  not  indulge  in  scattering  rebuttal,  picking  up 
most  or  all  of  the  points  made  against  you  but  in  perfectly 
haphazard  fashion.  First,  by  analysis  determine  just  which 
pf  the  ideas  urged  against  you  must  be  treated.  Secondly, 


412  DEBATING 

note  whether  all  must  be  treated  in  opening  your  speech, 
or  whether  some  naturally  connect  themselves  with  parts 
of  your  own  direct  proof  and  may  best  be  taken  up  in  con- 
nection with  them,  while  others  may  best  be  treated  at 
the  end  of  your  speech.  Of  course  selection  among  many 
ideas  advanced  against  your  case  is  not  easy,  but  sureness 
comes  with  practice.  The  test,  when  in  doubt  as  to  the 
necessity  for  considering  a  point  made  by  an  opponent,  is 
to  compare  it  with  the  accepted  special  issues.  If  it  has 
any  vital  relation  to  one  or  more  of  them,  it  must  be  treated. 
If  not,  it  may  go  out.  There  is  no  more  common  fault  in 
debating  than  a  combination  of  arbitrary  and  scattering 
rebuttal,  in  which  speakers  simply  try  to  answer  a  few 
of  the  many  ideas  advanced  against  them,  choosing  them 
apparently  entirely  at  random.  Nothing  more  surely  sends 
a  debate  adrift,  confusing  a  hearer  as  to  its  real  meaning 
and  the  exact  work  accomplished  up  to  a  given  point.  Of 
course  the  ability  to  value  each  objection  as  it  rises  and,  if 
it  deserve  reply,  to  place  it  properly  in  one's  own  case, 
comes  only  with  much  careful  practice,  but  no  one  is  a 
master  of  rebuttal  who  has  not  the  power,  and  without  it 
one  is  sure  to  render  impossible  the  unity  and  progression 
already  explained  as  essential. 

Form.  Let  a  speech  have  a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an 
end.  Begin  with  some  effective  thought  or  some  keen 
piece  of  analysis  which  places  a  case  somewhat  confused 
or  outlines  clearly  a  treatment  that  is  not  in  itself  simple. 
Keep  your  transitions  in  thought  clear.  You  owe  this  to 
your  audience.  Some  speeches  are,  however,  unrelated 
blocks  of  thought.  Watch  your  audience  and  see  to  it 
that  it  understands  the  significance  for  the  main  question 
of  what  you  say  in  each  division.  In  closing  see  that 


EXTERNAL  FORM  413 

what  your  work  as  a  whole  has  accomplished  is  evident 
and  if  possible  make  clear  into  what  position  it  forces 
your  opponents.  Keep  within  time  limits.  To  be  cut  off 
has  a  bad  effect :  it  is  worse  to  run  over.  In  an  intercol- 
legiate debate  some  years  ago,  one  speaker  persistently 
disregarded  the  repeated  fall  of  the  chairman's  gavel,  fin- 
ishing his  work  as  he  had  planned.  The  next  speaker,  on 
the  opposite  side  of  course,  who  as  he  began  rather  mark- 
edly placed  his  watch  before  him  on  the  desk,  was  careful 
to  come  to  the  end  of  his  effective  speech  before  the  time 
limit  had  expired.  Picking  up  his  watch  he  said :  "  I 
see,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I  still  have  four  minutes  left. 
These  I  present  to  the  preceding  speaker  for  his  rebuttal." 
Hearty  applause  from  an  audience  largely  composed  of 
college  mates  of  the  preceding  speaker  showed  how  much 
he  had  lost  by  his  disregard  of  the  regulations.  Get  climax 
in  your  work.  Even  if  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  discussion 
forces  you  to  disregard  it  in  the  ordering  of  your  ideas, 
gain  climactic  effect  from  your  phrasing,  manner,  and  voice. 
Many  speakers  approach  the  end  of  their  work  as  if  it 
were  a  dreaded  leap  into  oblivion,  and,  after  trying  again 
and  again  to  close,  end  abruptly  or  trail  off  in  less  and 
less  audible  sentences  till  the  gavel  falls. 

External  form.  Debaters  should  remember  that  their 
appearance  before  an  audience  may  have  a  large  persuasive 
effect  for  or  against  them.  The  fact  is,  any  beginner  in 
debate  will  save  himself  much  if  he  will  take  as  a  prelim- 
inary a  good  course  in  voice-training,  pose,  and  gesture. 
A  quiet,  not  self-conscious  facing  of  an  audience;  ability 
to  change  one's  position  easily,  instead  of  an  awkward 
shifting  from  foot  to  foot,  or  steady  swinging  of  the  trunk 
from  the  hips,  or  restless  pacing  of  the  platform ;  gestures 


414  DEBATING 

which  interpret  or  emphasize  instead  of  merely  betraying 
nervousness  —  all  these  are  desiderata  in  a  debater. 

Above  all  in  external  form,  train  the  voice.  Sometimes 
it  is  all  that  can  give  variety  to  a  speech,  but  its  power  to 
do  this  when  skillfully  used  is  amazing.  Much  speaking 
is  ineffective,  not  because  of  a  thin,  nasal,  or  harsh  tone, 
but  because  of  monotony.  Even  an  agreeable  tone,  if 
repeated  in  each  succeeding  sentence,  soon  comes  to  have 
a  marked  rhythm  that  deprives  the  matter  of  emphasis  and 
may  easily  put  the  hearers  to  sleep. 

Nor  is  speaking  mere  talking.  Much  of  the  talk  which 
we  hear  lacks  energy  and  also  variety  of  inflection,  but  he 
who  becomes  interested  in  some  argument  with  a  friend 
energizes,  puts  power  behind  his  delivery,  and  as  he  waxes 
more  and  more  interested  in  making  his  point,  lets  his 
feelings  color  his  voice  and  even  his  phrase.  Such  ener- 
gized talking  is  the  beginning  of  speaking.  Throw  your- 
self into  your  work  with  every  nerve  alert  and  every 
faculty  ready  to  be  of  use.  But  do  not  overreach  with 
the  voice,  that  is,  shout.  Reserve  power,  —  the  sugges- 
tion, when  you  are  speaking  energetically  and  are  evidently 
throwing  yourself  into  your  work,  that  you  are  by  no 
means  as  yet  at  your  full  possible  power,  —  is  desirable. 
To  this,  both  shouting  and  the  thin,  light  voice  are  almost 
insuperable  obstacles. 

Pose  helps  greatly.  Weak  knees,  which  allow  the  trunk 
to  settle,  block  good  tone  ;  drooping  shoulders,  contracting 
the  chest,  have  a  similar  effect.  Let  the  laws  of  gravity 
take  care  of  the  hands.  They  belong  neither  in  one's 
pockets  nor  on  the  hips.  Forget  them  till  your  thought 
impels  you  to  interpret  or  to  emphasize  it  by  gesture.  In 
that  case,  let  the  gesture  start  at  the  shoulder  rather  than 


THE  WORK  OF  EACH  DEBATER  415 

from  the  wrist  or  an  elbow  held  close  to  the  body.  Relax 
the  hand  instead  of  holding  it  clinched. 

Nor  may  vocabulary  be  neglected  by  the  earnest  debater. 
Many  a  student  who  writes  correctly  grows  slangy  or  falls 
into  cheap  colloquialisms  when  he  speaks.  Such  persons 
pound  their  way  through  sentences,  landing  emphatically 
on  unimportant  connectives  and  prepositions  instead  of 
significant  words  because  the  right  word  does  not  spring 
instantly  responsive  to  thought.  In  such  a  case  it  is  wise 
to  try  each  day  speaking  in  one's  room  for  five  minutes  on 
any  topic  which  interests  one,  with  an  accurate  and  respon- 
sive vocabulary  as  the  test  of  success.  If  the  difficulty 
results  from  nervousness  before  an  audience,  such  practice 
usually  shortly  cures  it.  If  the  vocabulary  is  really  meager, 
it  may  be  enlarged  by  any  of  the  devices  recommended  in 
courses  in  composition. 

The  work  of  each  debater.  It  may  be  well  to  state  what 
should  be  the  work  of  each  speaker  in  a  debate.  In  class 
debates,1  there  are  usually  two  persons  on  each  side, 
allowed,  for  instance,  ten  minutes  in.  which  to  open  the 
discussion,  fourteen  minutes  for  the  main  speech,  and  six 

1  Class  debates  rather  than  interclass  or  intercollegiate  debates  are 
considered  here  because  class-room  work  should  teach  more  than  debat- 
ing under  this  or  that  set  of  special  rules  established  by  some  committee, 
and  will,  if  well  done,  surely  turn  out  good  debaters  for  such  contests,  since 
it  deals  in  the  principles  underlying  all  good  oral  discussion.  Custom 
differs  decidedly  in  these  debating  contests,  for  sometimes  there  are  two, 
sometimes  three  contestants  on  a  side;  sometimes  all  three  speakers  on 
each  side  are  given  a  chance  in  rebuttal,  sometimes  only  one  ;  and  in  some 
places  the  negative  still  has  the  last  rebuttal  speech.  After  all,  the  direc- 
tions in  this  chapter  which  apply  to  the  whole  debate  as  contrasted  with 
the  special  speaker  hold  good  no  matter  whether  there  be  one,  two,  or 
three  men  on  a  side.  Nor  will  it  be  difficult  for  teacher  or  pupil  to  see 
the  slightly  different  apportionment  of  work  and  emphasis  which  a  third 
debater  on  a  team  or  three  final  rebuttal  speeches  may  make  necessary. 


416  DEBATING 

minutes  for  final  rebuttal,  with  some  five  or  six  speeches 
from  the  floor  of  four  minutes  each. 

Opening  speech  for  the  affirmative.  This  is  to  arouse 
interest  promptly  in  the  subject  or  to  increase  interest 
already  aroused.  Do  not  open  a  debate  like  a  seminar  on 
a  topic  in  history  or  economics,  nor  with  such  formality 
that  it  becomes  evident  that  you  are  thinking  more  of  the 
principles  of  debating  than  of  making  your  subject  inter- 
esting. State  rapidly  but  clearly  whatever  must  be  under- 
stood before  the  case  to  be  developed  can  be  listened  to 
intelligently.  If  a  printed  introduction  is  in  the  hands  of 
your  hearers,  do  not  assume  their  knowledge  of  its  con- 
tents :  rapidly,  lightly,  interestingly  run  over  its  contents. 
Increase  your  detail  of  treatment  if  no  such  outline  is  in 
their  hands.  Give  attention  carefully  to  admitted,  grantedv 
extraneous,  and  waived  matter,  and  the  issues.  Move  into 
the  first  division  of  your  argument.  A  trick  too  common 
in  debating  is  for  the  opening  speaker  to  make  his  exposi- 
tion so  full  that  he  has  no  room  for  argument.  Thus,  if  the 
introduction  be  acceptable  to  the  negative,  it  is  forced  into 
anticipatory  rebuttal  and  may  be  led  to  waste  its  strength 
in  attacking  what  the  affirmative  does  not  intend  to  treat. 
Usually,  the  negative,  unwilling  to  attack  in  the  dark, 
takes  any  opportunity  to  haggle  over  some  introductory 
detail,  and  thus,  when  the  third  speaker  opens  and  the 
debate  should  be  at  least  a  third  over,  it  has  not  really 
begun.  Another  reprehensible  trick  is  for  an  opening 
speaker  to  go  as  far  as  his  issues,  but  to  leave  the  nega- 
tive still  in  the  dark  about  them.  This  trick  is  usually 
given  the  appearance  of  a  miscalculation  in  time  which 
cuts  the  speaker  off  unexpectedly.  Either  trick  should 
count  heavily  against  the  side  perpetrating  it.  If  possible^ 


FIRST  SPEECH  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE  417 

do  not  merely  present  part  or  all  of  the  first  division  of  your 
argument,  but  show  in  closing  what  position  it  seems  to 
you  the  negative  must  take  in  regard  to  it.  That  makes 
it  impossible  for  the  negative  to  dodge  or  to  ignore  your 
contentions. 

First  speech  for  the  negative.  Make  clear  whether  the 
introduction  of  the  affirmative  is  acceptable,  especially  as 
to  admitted,  granted,  extraneous,  or  waived  matter  and  the 
issues.  Do  you  agree  to  the  order  in  which  the  affirmative 
evidently  means  to  treat  them?  Do  you  accept  the  task 
outlined  by  the  last  speaker  in  closing  ?  Is  there  any  reason 
why  his  argument  thus  far  may  best  be  treated  in  detail, 
not  by  you,  but  by  your  colleague?  If  so,  make  the  fact 
so  clear  that  no  hearer  can  doubt  your  right  to  postpone 
discussion  of  it.  Arbitrary  postponement  has  the  appear- 
ance of  dodging  the  question.  If  possible,  in  passing  the 
argument  over  to  your  colleague,  deal  it  one  blow,  leaving 
him  to  fill  in  details.  If  you  feel  that  it  is  your  duty  to 
consider  the  argument,  do  not  merely  pick  flaws  in  it  and 
produce  contradictory  evidence,  but  make  evident  (1)  why 
your  proof  is  better  than  that  of  the  affirmative,  and 
(2)  where  your  evidence,  well  selected  and  carefully  con* 
trasted  with  that  of  your  opponent,  leaves  the  case.  If 
you  do  not  need  all  your  time  to  answer  the  case  of  the 
affirmative  so  far  as  it  has  been  developed,  the  difficult 
part  of  your  task  is  to  decide  whether  to  lead  out  your 
attack  on  material  not  yet  submitted  by  your  opponents. 
Only  study  of'  the  special  conditions  of  each  case  can 
answer  this  question  properly,  but  usually  one  is  forced 
to  attack  because  the  whole  case  for  the  negative  cannot 
be  crowded  into  the  second  speech.  If  forced  to  produce 
anticipatory  rebuttal,  don't  spend  all  your  ammunition, 


418  DEBATING 

Strike  firm 'blows,  but  save  material  for  your  colleague  in 
the  second  negative  speech  or  for  the  final  rebuttal,  for  in 
either  of  these  you  will  both  know  just  what  the  affirma- 
tive has  to  say  on  the  matter.  When  closing,  make  clear 
(1)  what  you  have  tried  to  do ;  (2)  where  it  leaves  the 
whole  case ;  and  (3)  what  it  seems  to  you  the  affirmative 
must  in  consequence  do. 

Second  speech  for  the  affirmative.  First,  do  you  accept 
the  preceding  speaker's  contentions  as  to  (1),  (2),  and  (3) 
in  his  summing  up?  If  not,  readjust  the  case,  but  never 
arbitrarily :  let  your  audience  see  your  right  to  do  what 
you  wish.  If  you  feel  that  the  preceding  speaker  did  not 
successfully  meet  the  argument  of  your  colleague,  sum- 
marize carefully  so  that  the  audience  shall  see  why  the 
evidence  of  your  colleague  still  more  than  answers  the 
argument  of  the  negative.  Do  not  merely  assert  that  your 
opponent  has  been  overcome;  don't  treat  the  matter  with 
vague  reference,  as,  "  My  colleague  fully  met  all  this  by 
what  he  said  as  to  the  effect  of  immigration  on  crime." 
An  audience  may  not  remember  the  details  which  make 
the  force  of  this  proof.  Restate  rapidly,  comparing  the  two 
sets  of  evidence.  Of  course,  if  you  feel  sure,  from  watch- 
ing the  audience,  that  it  sees  the  failure  of  the  negative 
to  meet  your  colleague's  argument,  your  summary  may  be 
the  swiftest  possible  which  yet  recalls  the  way  in  which 
your  colleague  made  his  point  or  points.  If  you  don't  at 
once  answer  the  ideas  introduced  into  the  debate  by  the 
preceding  speaker,  justify  your  order.  If-  possible,  show 
that  he  mistook,  in  his  anticipatory  rebuttal,  your  plan  of 
campaign  and  has  overreached  himself  by  attacking  what 
you  do  not  mean  to  defend.  Remember  in  both  direct 
proof  and  rebuttal  that  your  evidence  is  of  value,  not 


SPEECHES  FROM  THE  FLOOR  419 

simply  because  evidence  is  produced,  but  because  you  show 
its  value  as  compared  with  the  evidence  of  your  opponents. 
In  closing,  leave  your  whole  case  clear,  summarizing  both 
your  colleague's  and  your  own  contribution  to  the  discus- 
sion and  their  effect  on  the  case  of  the  negative.  If  possi- 
ble, as  you  close,  insist  that  the  negative  must  not  merely 
object,  but  must  support  a  contrasting  plan  or  method. 
Of  course  in  many  cases  you  cannot  fairly  demand  this  of 
the  negative,  but  when  you  can  it  is  important  to  do  so. 

Second  speech  for  the  negative.  Do  you  accept  the  case 
as  emphasized  by  the  affirmative  ?  Do  you  accept  the  con- 
clusions of  the  second  speaker  for  the  affirmative  as  to 
your  colleague's  treatment  of  the  first  affirmative  speaker? 
If  you  do,  you  need  say  nothing ;  but  if  you  do  not,  rear- 
range, justifying  your  changes.  It  may  sometimes  be 
advisable  to  leave  some  rebuttal  suggested  by  the  preced- 
ing speech  till  the  final  rebuttal.  If  so,  make  clear  your 
right  .to  postpone  it.  Strengthen  as  much  as  you  can  the 
positions  taken  by  your  colleague.  If  a  contrasting  case 
must  be  presented,  this  is  the  place  for  it.  In  supporting 
this  or  in  rebuttal,  remember  that  cogent  reasoning  on  a 
few  well-selected  facts  is  more  convincing  than  a  mere 
array  of  evidence.  In  closing,  place  the  whole  case  for 
your  side  in  relation  to  the  case  for  the  affirmative. 

Speeches  from  the  floor.  In  class  debates  the  speeches 
from  the  floor  come  at  this  point.  These  should  not  be 
mere  statements  of  opinion  or  questions  only,  but  debating. 
Would-be  .speakers  from  the  floor,  either  before  coming 
to  the  class  room,  or  as  they  listen  to  the  debate,  should 
select  an  idea  for  development.  It  may  be  one  treated  or 
suggested  in  the  main  debate  or  by  some  speech  from 
the  floor.  The  speaker  should  make  clear  his  point,  his 


420  DEBATING 

answer  to  obvious  objections  to  it,  and  what  he  takes  to 
be  the  effect  of  it  on  the  case  as  a  whole.  Obviously  it 
will  not  be  possible  to  do  this  for  more  than  one  point, 
and  not  even  for  that  unless  there  is  skillful  selection  in 
evidence  with  conciseness  of  phrase.  If  the  main  debate 
has  been  confused,  it  is  helpful  to  let  the  first  speaker 
from  the  floor  analyze  the  main  debate,  showing  judicially 
what  has  been  accomplished  and  what  remains  to  be  done, 
or  how  the  question  should  be  reemphasized,  so  that  his 
successors  on  the  floor  may  not  go  astray.  It  is  probably 
best  to  let  the  speeches  alternate  for  affirmative  and  nega- 
tive. Sometimes  it  is  helpful  to  allow  the  last  speaker 
before  the  final  rebuttal  to  summarize  the  whole  discus- 
sion, including  the  speeches  from  the  floor,  leaving  a  clear 
case  for  the  rebuttal  speakers  to  accept,  treating  it  swiftly 
but  with  evidential  firmness,  or  to  reemphasize  with  justi- 
fication and  then  treat  strongly.  It  sometimes  sharpens 
the  rebuttal  speeches  or  aids  in  keeping  mere  questioning 
out  of  the  speeches  from  the  floor  to  permit  members  ©f 
the  course  to  ask  questions,  not  speaking  to  them,  just 
before  the  final  rebuttal  begins. 

•  Final  rebuttal.  The  negative  now  opens  in  rebuttal,  as 
an  offset  to  its  advantage  in  not  having  to  open  up  the 
case.  The  chief  points  in  final  rebuttal  are  non-introduc- 
tion of  any  new  aspect  of  the  case,  though  new  evidence 
may  be  produced  to  support  an  idea  already  treated  in  the 
main  debate;1  treatment  of  the  case  as  a  whole,  but  so 

1  Debates  leading  to  a  decision  have  aroused  discussion  of  this  principle, 
for  advantage  has  been  taken  of  the  opportunity  it  offers  to  hold  back 
evidence  which  should  have  been  produced  earlier  in  the  debate.  But 
must  evidence,  crowded  out  because  of  unexpected  detail  called  for  in 
some  division  or  really  forgotten,  be  ruled  out  of  the  final  rebuttal  because 
some  debaters  are  willing  to  be  mere  shysters  ? 


FORMALISM  IN  DEBATE  421 

cut  down  by  analysis  as  to  be  susceptible  of  treatment 
in  six  minutes ;  telling  blows  by  well-selected  evidence ;, 
recognition  of  arguments  pro  and  con  introduced  from  the 
floor  as  well  as  in  the  main  discussion ;  and  a  close  which 
makes  a  hearer  understand  what  the  speaker  thinks  he 
has  done  and  where  the  case  rests.  Naturally  all  this  is 
possible  in  so  brief  a  space  only  when  sure  and  swift  analy- 
sis reduces  a  case  to  very  simple  proportions ;  an  equally 
sure  selection  of  evidence  picks  just  the  piece  of  evidence 
which,  by  itself  or  with  summarizing  reference  to  evidence 
already  produced  in  the  debate,  makes  the  point  good;  and 
when  the  phrasing  is  succinct.  Mastery  of  final  rebuttal 
usually  coincides  with  mastery  of  debate.  It  cannot  come 
till  one  can  debate  well  elsewhere,  but  till  it  comes,  a  good 
debate  may  go  to  pieces  at  the  last  moment. 

Formalism  in  debate.  Of  course,  the  directions  just 
given  state  merely  what  must  underlie  each  speech,  not  by 
any  means  what  shpuld  be  unmistakably  evident.  After 
all,  the  greatest  art  is  that  which  conceals  itself,  and  in 
no  art  is  this  truer  than  in  argumentation.  Particularly  in 
managing  the  transitions  from  the  speech  of  one  side  to 
the  next  for  the  opposite  side  a  debater  must  beware  of' 
formalism.  Do  the  work,  get  the  result,  but  do  not  let 
the  method  obtrude  itself.  Many  a  debate  has  been  weari- 
some beyond  endurance  because,  though  all  the  proper 
steps  were  properly  taken,  they  were  made  so  prominently 
that  the  technical  moves  of  debating  attracted  more  atten- 
tion than  the  development  of  the  question  at  issue.  The 
skilled  debater,  resting  on  his  training  in  analysis,  struc- 
ture, evidence,  and  presentation,  will  show  the  special 
characteristics  of  good  debate  —  fairness,  clearness,  thor- 
oughness, and  mobility  —  but  in  such  fashion  that  his 


422  DEBATING 

audience  will  not  think  of  any  of  these  matters,  so  absorbed 
will  it  be  in  his  interesting,  lucid,  and  cogent  presentation 
of  his  case. 

The  relation  of  theory  to  practice.  All  that  has  been  said 
of  written  and  oral  argumentation  shows  that  it  is  a  diffi- 
cult art,  to  be  mastered  only  through  persistent,  conscien- 
tious practice  of  its  principles.  Often  in  colleges,  students 
who  have  deservedly  gained  some  reputation  at  school  or  in 
their  Freshman  year  as  speakers,  confident  of  their  powers, 
filled  with  the  widespread  idea  that  genius  needs  no  train- 
ing other  than  practice,  refuse  to  enter  courses  in  argument. 
Repeating  year  after  year  without  severe  criticism  the  errors 
which  were  not  serious  at  first  but  which  soon  hardened 
into  grave  faults,  they  grow  dissatisfied  and  complaining 
when  more  and  more  often  they  are  on  losing  teams.  Some 
in  disgust  drop  out  of  debating,  protesting  that  something 
indefinable  is  wrong  which  is  unjust  to  them.  As  in  any 
art,  in  argumentation  use  makes  perfect,  and  he  who  is  told 
he  has  promise  as  a  debater  will  be  wise  to  submit  to  severe 
training  in  the  principles  which  underlie  argumentation ; 
nor  .should  he  allow  himself  to  be  led  astray  by  that  ignis 
•fatuus  of  the  weary  or  lazy  student,  the  idea  that  because 
in  his  first  careful  study  of  the  rules  of  the  art  he  finds 
his  work  hampered  by  them,  he  is  losing  his  individuality 
and  may  even  work  less  well  after  his  study  than  before. 
There  is  undoubtedly  a  stage  in  learning  and  applying  laws 
of  any  art  when,  for  a  time,  the  student  feels  hampered  by 
warnings  for  and  against  this  or  that,  and  longs  for  his  old 
freedom  of  movement  which  certainly  brought  him  larger 
results.  Gradually,  however,  the  laws  that  were  at  first  so 
hampering  become  a  matter  of  course.  When  this  stage 
in  his  work  is  reached,  if  he  compares  his  result  with  the 


EXERCISES  .  423 

results  of  his  labor  before  he  studied  at  all,  he  will  see  his 
great  gain.  Certainly,  only  when  a  man  has  so  thoroughly 
learned  his  art  that  instinctively  he  works  rightly,  can  he 
be  said  to  be  master  of  it.  None  of  the  great  orators 
gained  his  mastery  without  infinite  pains.  The  beginner 
in  argumentation,  hesitating  whether  to  submit  himself  to 
strict  training  in  the  principles  of  Persuasion  and  Convic- 
tion, should  ponder  these  words  of  Demosthenes :  — 

It  seems  to  me  far  more  natural  that  a  man  engaged  in 
composing  political  discourses,  unperishable  memorials  of  his 
power,  should  neglect  not  even  the  smallest  detail,  than  that 
the  generation  of  painters  and  sculptors,  who  are  darkly  show- 
ing forth  their  manual  tact  and  toil  in  corruptible  material, 
should  exhaust  the  refinements  of  their  art  on  the  veins,  on 
the  feathers,  on  the  down  of  the  lip,  and  the  like  niceties.1 

EXERCISES 

1.  Apply  with  the  class  to  the  following  topics  the  comments  on 
pp.  398-402,  in  regard  to  choice  of  topics :  — 

"  Has  Civilization  benefited  more  from  poetry  than  from  science?" 
"  That  it  is  harmful  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  rest 
on  what  their  forefathers  did  and  to  be  honored  for  it,  rather  than 
to  be  proud  of  what  improvements  they  themselves  have  made." 
"  Judges  should  not  be  elected  by  popular  vote." 
"  The  efforts  of  the  Russian  Nihilists  are  entitled  to  the  sympathy 
of  a  free  people." 

"  Church  unity  is  not  possible." 

"  Intercollegiate  football  promotes  the  best  interests  of  colleges." 
"  The  scheme  of  transporting  the  negro  to  Africa  is  impracticable." 
"It  should  not  be  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  hold  per- 
manently foreign  territory  unless  it  be  with  the  purpose  of  giving 
it  ultimate  statehood." 

"  Codification  of  the  common  law  is  not  unwise." 

i  Attic  Orators.    R.  C.  Jebb.    Vol.  I,  p.  Ixxv.    Macmillan  &  Co. 


424  DEBATING 

2.  Discuss  with  the  class   burden   of  proof  in  both    senses  as 
exemplified  in  the  specimen  debate  printed  in  the  Appendix. 

3.  Let  the   class   read   carefully  the    specimen   debate.    In  the 
class  room  discuss  its  merits  and  demerits;  first,  when  judged  as  a 
whole  by  the  standards  explained  on  pp.  408-415,  and  secondly,  by 
the  standards  named  for  each  speaker. 


APPENDIX 

OF 

ILLUSTRATIVE  MATERIAL 


426 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS 


APPENDIX 


I.   Persuasion.    Lord  Chatham.     On  Employing  Indians.    (See  pp.  9 
and  10.) 

II.    Definition.    Edmund  Burke.    Definition  of  Party.    (See  p.  28.) 

III.  Introductory  Analysis.    Professor  Huxley.     First  Lecture  on  Evo- 

lution.    (See  pp.  28  and  296.) 

IV.  Clash  in  Opinion.    Professional  Coaching  for  Crew.    (See  pp.  49 

and  59.) 

V.  Clash  in  Opinion.    Dispensary  System  for  Sale  of  Liquor.    (Seep.  63.) 

VI.  Clash  in  Opinion.    Woman  Suffrage.    (See  p.  63.) 

VII.  Clash  in  Opinion.    Reestablishment  of  Canteen.     (See  p.  63.) 

VIII.  Specimen  Introduction.   Severity  of  Officers  in  Philippines.  (See  p.  63.) 

IX.  Specimen  Introduction.    Eight-Hour  Labor  Law.    (See  p.  63.) 

X.  Specimen  Introduction.    Changes  in  Banking  Laws.     (See  p.  63.) 

XI.  Specimen  Introduction.    Increase  of  Tuition  Fee.    (See  p.  63.) 

XII.  Specimen  Introduction.    Cecil  Rhodes  Scholarships.    (See  p.  63.) 

XIII.  Brief  for  Refutation  Exercise.     Brief  E.     Capital  Punishment,  I. 

(See  pp.  204  and  289.) 

XIV.  Specimen  Poor  Brief.    Brief  F.     Student  Government  at  Wellesley. 

(See  pp.  63  and  289.)  ' 

XV.    Specimen  Poor  Brief.    Brief  G.    Subway  Tavern.    (See  p.  289.) 

426 


CONTENTS  —  APPENDIX  427 

XVI.    Specimen  Poor  Brief.    Brief  H.    Capital  Punishment,  II.    (See 
p.  289.) 

XVII.    Specimen  Good  Brief.    Brief  I.    Police  vs.  Technology  Students. 
(See  p.  49.) 

XVIII.    Specimen  Good  Brief .    Brief  J.    Onset  vs.  Wareham.  (Seep.  49.) 

XIX.    Specimen  Brief  drawn  from  Speech.    Brief  K.     Removing  the 
Troops.     (See  pp.  231  and  236.) 

XX.    Material  for  Briefing.    Don  Sebastian.    (See  p.  289.) 

XXI.    Material  for  Briefing.    John  Churton  Collins.    Swift  and  Stella. 
(See  pp.  198,  289,  and  379.) 

XXII.    Material  for  Briefing.    Carl  Schurz.    The  Crime  of  1873.    (See 
p.  289.) 

XXIII.  Material  for  Briefing.     T.  B.  Macaulay.     The  Persecution  of 

Queen  Elizabeth.    (See  p.  289.) 

XXIV.  Specimen   of  Assertiveness.     Forensic  A.     Increase  of  United 

States  Army.    (See  pp.  153,  194,  342,  and  397.) 

XXV.    Specimen  of  Assertiveness.    Forensic  B.    The  Beaconsfield  Min- 
istry and  the  Eastern  Question.   (See  pp.  153,  342,  and  397.) 

XXVI.    Specimen  Poor  Forensic.    Forensic  C.    Sheriff  Martin  at  Lat- 
timer,  I.     (See  p.  342.) 

XXVII.    A  Good  Forensic.    Forensic  D.    Sheriff  Martin  at  Lattimer,  II. 
(See  p.  342.) 

XXVIII.    A  Good  Forensic.    Forensic  E.    Elective  System  in  High  Schools. 
(See  pp.  59  and  342.) 

XXIX.    A  Good  Forensic.     Forensic  F.    Ulster  and  Home  Rule.    (See 
pp.  194  and  342.) 

XXX.    A  Persuasive  Forensic.    Forensic  G.    Plea  for  Pension  Reform. 
(See  pp.  342,  395,  396,  and  397.) 

XXXI.    An  Argumentative  Speech.    Forensic  H.    Extermination  of  the 
Gypsy  Moth.     (See  pp.  342,  395,  and  396.) 

XXXII.    An  Argumentative  Speech.    Forensic  I.    A  New  Plea  on  an  Old 
Subject.    (See  pp.  342,  395,  and  397.) 

XXXIII.    A  Specimen  Debate. 


APPENDIX 


A  PERSUASIVE  SPEECH 

On  the  Employment  of  Indians  in  the  War  against  the  Colonies 
LORD  CHATHAM 

[In  the  course  of  the  debate  on  affairs  in  America,  Lord 
Suffolk,  secretary  for  the  Northern  Department,  undertook 
to  defend  the  employment  of  the  Indians  in  the  war.  His 
Lordship  contended  that,  besides  its  policy  and  necessity,  the 
measure  was  also  allowable  on  principle;  for  that  "it  was 
perfectly  justifiable  to  use  all  the  means  that  God  and  nature 
put  into  our  hands  !  "] 

I  am  astonished  [exclaimed  Lord  Chatham  as  he  rose], 
shocked  to  hear  such  principles  confessed  —  to  hear  them 
avowed  in  this  House,  or  in  this  country ;  principles  equally 
unconstitutional,  inhuman,  and  unchristian ! 

My  Lords,  I  did  not  intend  to  have  encroached  again  upon 
your  attention,  but  I  cannot  repress  my  indignation.  I  feel 
myself  impelled  by  every  duty.  My  Lords,  we  are  called 
upon  as  members  of  this  House,  as  men,  as  Christian  men, 
to  protest  against  such  notions  standing  near  the  Throne,  pol- 
luting the  ear  of  Majesty.  "  That  God  and  nature  put  into 
our  hands ! "  I  know  not  what  ideas  that  lord  may  enter- 
tain of  God  and  nature,  but  I  know  that  such  abominable 
principles  are  equally  abhorrent  to  religion  and  humanity. 
What!  to  attribute  the  sacred  sanction  of  God  and  nature 

428 


APPENDIX  429 

to  the  massacres  of  the  Indian  scalping-knife  —  to  the  can- 
nibal savage  torturing,  murdering,  roasting,  and  eating  — 
literally,  my  Lords,  eating  the  mangled  victims  of  his  bar- 
barous battles !  Such  horrible  notions  shock  every  precept 
of  religion,  divine  or  natural,  and  every  generous  feeling  of 
humanity.  And,  my  Lords,  they  shock  every  sentiment  of 
honor ;  they  shock  me  as  a  lover  of  honorable  war,  and  a 
detester  of  murderous  barbarity. 

These  abominable  principles,  and  this  more  abominable 
avowal  of  them,  demand  the  most  decisive  indignation.  I 
call  upon  that  right  reverend  bench,  those  holy  ministers  of 
the  Gospel,  and  pious  pastors  of  our  Church  —  I  conjure  them 
to  join  in  the  holy  work,  and  vindicate  the  religion  of  their 
God.  I  appeal  to  the  wisdom  and  the  law  of  this  learned 
bench  to  defend  and  support  the  justice  of  their  country. 
I  call  upon  the  Bishops  to  interpose  the  unsullied  sanctity 
of  their  lawn;  upon  the  learned  Judges,  to  interpose  the 
purity  of  their  ermine,  to  save  us  from  this  pollution.  I 
call  upon  the  honor  of  your  Lordships  to  reverence  the  dig- 
nity of  your  ancestors,  and  to  maintain  your  own.  I  call 
upon  the  spirit  and  humanity  of  my  country  to  vindicate 
the  national  character.  I  invoke  the  genius  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. From  the  tapestry  that  adorns  these  walls,  the  immor- 
tal ancestor  of  this  noble  lord  frowns  with  indignation  at 
the  disgrace  of  his  country.  In  vain  he  led  your  victorious 
fleets  against  the  boasted  Armada  of  Spain ;  in  vain  he 
defended  and  established  the  honor,  the  liberties,  the  reli- 
gion—  the  Protestant  religion  —  of  this  country,  against  the 
arbitrary  cruelties  of  Popery  and  the  Inquisition,  if  these 
more  than  popish  cruelties  and  inquisitorial  practices  are  let 
loose  among  us  —  to  turn  forth  into  our  settlements,  among 
our  ancient  connections,  friends,  and  relations,  the  merciless 
cannibal,  thirsting  for  the  blood  of  man,  woman,  and  child ! 
to  send  forth  the  infidel  savage  —  against  whom  ?  against 
your  Protestant  brethren ;  to  lay  waste  their  country,  to 
desolate  their  dwellings,  and  extirpate  their  race  and  name 


430  APPENDIX 

with  these  horrible  hell-hounds  of  savage  war  —  hell-hounds, 
I  say,  of  savage  war  !  Spain  armed  herself  with  blood-hounds 
to  extirpate  the  wretched  natives  of  America,  and  we  improve 
on  the  inhuman  example  even  of  Spanish  cruelty ;  we  turn 
loose  these  savage  hell-hounds  against  our  brethren  and  coun- 
trymen in  America,  of  the  same  language,  laws,  liberties,  and 
religion,  endeared  to  us  by  every  tie  that  should  sanctify 
humanity. 

My  Lords,  this  awful  subject,  so  important  to  our  honor,  our 
Constitution,  and  our  religion,  demands  the  most  solemn  and 
effectual  inquiry ;  and  I  again  call  upon  your  Lordships,  and 
the  united  powers  of  the  state,  to  examine  it  thoroughly 
and  decisively,  and  to  stamp  upon  it  an  indelible  stigma  of 
the  public  abhorrence.  And  I  again  implore  those  holy  prel- 
ates of  our  religion  to  do  away  these  iniquities  from  among 
us.  Let  them  perform  a  lustration ;  let  them  purify  this 
House,  and  this  country,  from  this  sin. 

My  Lords,  I  am  old  and  weak,  and  at  present  unable  to 
say  more ;  but  my  feelings  and  indignation  were  too  strong 
to  have  said  less.  I  could  not  have  slept  this  night  in 
my  bed,  nor  reposed  my  head  on  my  pillow,  without  giving 
this  vent  to  my  eternal  abhorrence  of  such  preposterous  and 
enormous  principles.1 

1  Representative  British  Orations.  C.  K.  Adams.  Vol.  I,  pp.  138-141. 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons.  1884. 


APPENDIX  431 

• 

II 

DEFINITION  OF  PARTY 
DEFENCE  OF  PARTY 

IN 

Thoughts  on  the  Cause  of  the  Present  Discontents 
EDMUND  BURKE 

This  cabal  has,  with  great  success,  propagated  a  doctrine 
which  serves  for  a  colour  to  those  acts  of  treachery ;  and 
whilst  it  receives  any  degree  of  countenance,  it  will  be  utterly 
senseless  to  look  for  a  vigorous  opposition  to  the  court  party. 
The  doctrine  is  this  :  That  all  political  connexions  are  in  their 
nature  factious,  and  as  such  ought  to  be  dissipated  and  de- 
stroyed; and  that  the  rule  for  forming  administrations  is 
mere  personal  ability,  rated  by  the  judgment  of  this  cabal 
upon  it,  and  taken  by  draughts  from  every  division  and 
denomination  of  public  men.  This  decree  was  solemnly  pro- 
mulgated by  the  head  of  the  court  corps,  .the  Earl  of  Bute 
himself,  in  a  speech  which  he  made,  in  the  year  1766,  against 
the  then  administration,  the  only  administration  which  he  has 
ever  been  known  directly  and  publicly  to  oppose. 

It  is  indeed  in  no  way  wonderful,  that  such  persons  should 
make  such  declarations.  That  connexion  and  faction  are  equiv- 
alent terms,  is  an  opinion  which  has  been  carefully  inculcated 
at  all  times  by  unconstitutional  statesmen.  The  reason  is 
evident.  Whilst  men  are  linked  together,  they  easily  and 
speedily  communicate  the  alarm  of  any  evil  design.  They 
are  enabled  to  fathom  it  with  common  counsel,  and  to  oppose 
it  with  united  strength.  Whereas,  when  they  lie  dispersed, 
without  concert,  order,  or  discipline,  communication  is  uncer- 
tain, counsel  difficult,  and  resistance  impracticable.  Where 


432  APPENDIX 

men  are  not  acquainted  with  each  other's  principles,  nor 
experienced  in  each  other's  talents,  nor  at  all  practised  in 
their  mutual  habitudes  and  dispositions  by  joint  efforts  in 
business;  no  personal  confidence,  no  friendship,  no  common 
interest  subsisting  among  them,  it  is  evidently  impossible 
that  they  can  act  a  public  part  with  uniformity,  perseverance, 
or  efficacy.  In  a  connexion,  the  most  inconsiderable  man,  by 
adding  to  the  weight  of  the  whole,  has  his  value,  and  his  use  j 
out  of  it,  the  greatest  talents  are  wholly  unserviceable  to  the 
public.  No  man,  who  is  not  inflamed  by  vain-glory  into  en- 
thusiasm, can  flatter  himself  that  his  single,  unsupported, 
desultory,  unsystematic  endeavours,  are  of  power  to  defeat  the 
subtle  designs  and  united  cabals  of  ambitious  citizens.  When 
bad  men  combine,  the  good  must  associate  ;  else  they  will  fall, 
one  by  one,  an  unpitied  sacrifice  in  a  contemptible  struggle. 

It  is  not  enough  in  a  situation  of  trust  in  the  common- 
wealth, that  a  man  means  well  to  his  country ;  it  is  not  enough 
that  in  his  single  person  he  never  did  an  evil  act,  but  always 
voted  according  to  his  conscience, -and  even  harangued  against 
every  design  which  he  apprehended  to  be  prejudicial  to  the 
interests  of  his  country.  This  innoxious  and  ineffectual  char- 
acter, that  seems  formed  upon  a  plan  of  apology  and  discul- 
pation,  falls  miserably  short  of  the  mark  of  public  duty.  That 
duty  demands  and  requires,  that  what  is  right  should  not  only 
be  made  known,  but  made  prevalent ;  that  what  is  evil  should 
not  only  be  detected,  but  defeated.  When  the  public  man 
omits  to  put  himself  in  a  situation  of  doing  his  duty  with 
effect,  it  is  an  omission  that  frustrates  the  purposes  of  his 
trust  almost  as  much  as  if  he  had  formally  betrayed  it.  It  is 
surely  no  very  rational  account  of  a  man's  life,  that  he  has 
always  acted  right ;  but  has  taken  special  care  to  act  in  such 
a  manner  that  his  endeavours  could  not  possibly  be  productive 
of  any  consequence. 

I  do  not  wonder  that  the  behaviour  of  many  parties  should 
have  made  persons  of  tender  and  scrupulous  virtue  somewhat 
out  of  humour  with  all  sorts  of  connexion  in  politics.  I  admit 


APPENDIX  433 

that  people  frequently  acquire  in  such  confederacies  a  narrow, 
bigoted,  and  prescriptive  spirit;  that  they  are  apt  to  sink 
the  idea  of  the  general  good  in  this  circumscribed  and  par- 
tial interest.  But,  where  duty  renders  a  critical  situation  a 
necessary  one,  it  is  our  business  to  keep  free  from  the  evils 
attendant  upon  it;  and  not  to  fly  from  the  situation  itself. 
If  a  fortress  is  seated  in  an  unwholesome  air,  an  officer  of  the 
garrison  is  obliged  to  be  attentive  to  his  health,  but  he  must 
not  desert  his  station.  Every  profession,  not  excepting  the 
glorious  one  of  a  soldier,  or  the  sacred  one  of  a  priest,  is 
liable  to  its  own  particular  vices ;  which,  however,  form  no 
argument  against  those  ways  of  life ;  nor  are  the  vices  them- 
selves inevitable  to  every  individual  in  those  professions.  Of 
such  a  nature  are  connexions  in  politics  ;  essentially  necessary 
for  the  full  performance  of  our  public  duty,  accidentally  liable 
to  degenerate  into  faction.  Commonwealths  are  made  of  fam- 
ilies, free  commonwealths  of  parties  also ;  and  we  may  as  well 
affirm,  that  our  natural  regards  and  ties  of  blood  tend  inevi- 
tably to  make  men  bad  citizens,  as  that  the  bonds  of  our  party 
weaken  those  by  which  we  are  held  to  our  country. 

Some  legislators  went  so  far  as  to  make  neutrality  in  party 
a  crime  against  the  state.  I  do  not  know  whether  this  might 
not  have  been  rather  to  overstrain  the  principle.  Certain  it 
is,  the  best  patriots  in  the  greatest  commonwealths  have 
always  commended  and  promoted  such  connexions.  Idem  sen- 
tire  de  republica^  was  with  them  a  principal  ground  of  friend- 
ship and  attachment;  nor  do  I  know  any  other  capable  of 
forming  firmer,  dearer,  more  pleasing,  more  honourable,  and 
more  virtuous  habitudes.  The  Romans  carried  this  principle 
a  great  way.  Even  the  holding  of  offices  together,  the  dispo- 
sition of  which  arose  from  chance,  not  selection,  gave  rise  to 
a  relation  which  continued  for  life.  It  was  called  necessitudo 
sortis;  and  it  was  looked  upon  with  a  sacred  reverence. 
Breaches  of  any  of  these  kinds  of  civil  relation  were  consid- 
ered as  acts  of  the  most  distinguished  turpitude.  The  whole 
people  was  distributed  into  political  societies,  in  which  they 


434  APPENDIX 

acted  in  support  of  such  interests  in  the  state  as  they  sever- 
ally affected.  For  it  was  then  thought  no  crime,  to  endeavour 
by  every  honest  means  to  advance  to  superiority  and  power 
those  of  your  own  sentiments  and  opinions.  This  wise  peo- 
ple was  far  from  imagining  that  those  connexions  had  no  tie, 
and  obliged  to  no  duty ;  but  that  men  might  quit  them  with- 
out shame,  upon  every  call  of  interest.  They  believed  private 
honour  to  be  the  great  foundation  of  public  trust ;  that  friend- 
ship was  no  mean  step  toward  patriotism ;  that  he  who,  in 
the  common  intercourse  of  life,  showed  he  regarded  somebody 
besides  himself,  when  he  came  to  act  in  a  public  situation, 
might  probably  consult  some  other  interests  than  his  own. 
Never  may  we  become  plus  sages  que  les  sages,  as  the  French 
comedian  has  happily  expressed  it,  wiser  than  all  the  wise  and 
good  men  who  have  lived  before  us.  It  was  their  wish,  to 
see  public  and  private  virtues,  not  dissonant  and  jarring,  and 
mutually  destructive,  but  harmoniously  combined,  growing 
out  of  one  another  in  a  noble  and  orderly  gradation,  recipro- 
cally supporting  and  supported.  In  one  of  the  most  fortunate 
periods  of  our  history  this  country  was  governed  by  a  connex- 
ion; I  mean  the  great  connexion  of  Whigs  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Anne.  They  were  complimented  upon  the  principle  of 
this  connexion  by  a  poet  who  was  in  high  esteem  with  them. 
Addison,  who  knew  their  sentiments,  could  not  praise  them 
for  what  they  considered  as  no  proper  subject  of  commenda- 
tion. As  a  poet  who  knew  his  business,  he  could  not  applaud 
them  for  a  thing  which  in  general  estimation  was  not  highly 
reputable.  Addressing  himself  to  Britain, 

"  Thy  favourites  grow  not  up  by  fortune's  sport, 
Or  from  the  crimes  or  follies  of  a  court, 
On  the  firm  basis  of  desert  they  rise, 
From  long-tried  faith,  and  friendship's  holy  ties." 

The  Whigs  of  those  days  believed  that  the  only  proper 
method  of  rising  into  power  was  through  hard  essays  of  prac- 
tised friendship  and  experimented  fidelity.  At  that  time  it 


APPENDIX  435 

was  not  imagined,  that  patriotism  was  a  bloody  idol,  which 
required  the  sacrifice  of  children  and  parents,  or  dearest  con- 
nexions in  private  life,  and  of  all  the  virtues  that  rise  from 
those  relations.  They  were  not  of  that  ingenious  paradoxical 
morality,  to  imagine  that  a  spirit  of  moderation  was  properly 
shown  in  patiently  bearing  the  sufferings  of  your  friends ;  or 
that  disinterestedness  was  clearly  manifested  at  the  expense 
of  other  people's  fortune.  They  believed  that  no  men  could 
act  with  effect,  who  did  not  act  in  concert ;  that  no  men  could 
act  in  concert,  who  did  not  act  with  confidence ;  that  no  men 
could  act  with  confidence,  who  were  not  bound  together  by 
common  opinions,  common  affections,  and  common  interests. 

These  wise  men,  for  such  I  must  call  Lord  Sunderland, 
Lord  Godolphin,  Lord  Somers,  and  Lord  Marlborough,  were 
too  well  principled  in  these  maxims  upon  which  the  whole 
fabric  of  public  strength  is  built,  to  be  blown  off  their  ground 
by  the  breath  of  every  childish  talker.  They  were  not  afraid 
that  they  should  be  called  an  ambitious  Junto ;  or  that  their 
resolution  to  stand  or  fall  together  should,  by  placemen,  be 
interpreted  into  a  scuffle  for  places. 

Party  is  a  body  of  men  united,  for  promoting  by  their  joint 
endeavours  the  national  interest,  upon  some  particular  principle 
in  which  they  are  all  agreed.*  For  my  part,  I  find  it  impos- 
sible to  conceive,  that  any  one  believes  in  his  own  politics, 
or  thinks  them  to  be  of  any  weight,  who  refuses  to  adopt  the 
means  of  having  them  reduced  into  practice.  It  is  the  busi- 
ness of  the  speculative  philosopher  to  mark  the  proper  ends 
of  government.  It  is  the  business  of  the  politician,  who  is 
the  philosopher  in  action,  to  find  out  proper  means  towards 
those  ends,  and  to  employ  them  with  effect.  Therefore  every 
honourable  connexion  will  avow  it  is  their  first  purpose,  to 
pursue  every  just  method  to  put  the  men  who  hold  their 
opinions  into  such  a  condition  as  may  enable  them  to  carry 
their  common  plans  into  execution,  with  all  the  power  and 

1  Italics  not  in  the  original. 


436  APPENDIX 

authority  of  the  state.  As  this  power  is  attached  to  certain 
situations,  it  is  their  duty  to  contend  for  these  situations. 
Without  a  proscription  of  others,  they  are  bound  to  give  to 
their  own  party  the  preference  in  all  things  ;  and  by  no  means, 
for  private  considerations,  to  accept  any  offers  of  power  in 
which  the  whole  body  is  not  included;  nor  to  suffer  them- 
selves to  be  led,  or  to  be  controlled,  or  to  be  overbalanced, 
in  office  or  in  council,  by  those  who  contradict  the  very  fun- 
damental principles  on  which  their  party  is  formed,  and  even 
those  upon  which  every  fair  connexion  must  stand.  Such  a 
generous  contention  for  power,  on  such  manly  and  honour- 
able maxims,  will  easily  be  distinguished  from  the  mean  and 
interested  struggle  for  place  and  emolument.  The  very  style 
of  isuch  persons  will  serve  to  discriminate  them  from  those 
numberless  impostors,  who  have  deluded  the  ignorant  with 
professions  incompatible  with  human  practice,  and  have  after- 
wards incensed  them  by  practices  below  the  level  of  vulgar 
rectitude. 

Ill 

A  SPECIMEN  INTRODUCTION 

The  First  of  Three  Lectures  on  Evolution1 

T.  H.  HUXLEY 

We  live  in  and  form  part  of  a  system  of  things  of  immense 
diversity  and  complexity,  which  we  call  Nature ;  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  the  deepest  interest  to  all  of  us  that  we  should  form 
just  conceptions  of  the  constitution  of  that  system  and  of 
its  past  history.2  With  relation  to  this  universe,  man  is,  in 

1  Specimens  of  Argumentation,     pp.  60-72. 

2  In  this  desire  and  power  of  man  to  speculate  upon  the  past  history 
of  the  universe,  Professor  Huxley  finds  the  origin  of  the  question  of 
Evolution  that  he  is  to  present  to  his  audience.     So  far  as  is  expressed, 


APPENDIX  437 

extent,  little  more  than  a  mathematical  point ;  in  duration 
but  a  fleeting  shadow;  he  is  a  mere  reed  shaken  in  the  winds 
of  force.  But,  as  Pascal  long  ago  remarked,  although  a  mere 
reed,  he  is  a  thinking  reed ;  and  in  virtue  of  that  wonderful 
capacity  of  thought,  he  has  the  power  of  framing  for  himself 
a  symbolic  conception  of  the  universe,  which,  although  doubt- 
less highly  imperfect  and  inadequate  as  a  picture  of  the  great 
whole,  is  yet  sufficient  to  serve  him  as  a  chart  for  the  guid- 
ance of  his  practical  affairs.  It  has  taken  long  ages  of  toil- 
some and  often  fruitless  labor  to  enable  man  to  look  steadily 
at  the  shifting  scenes  of  the  phantasmagoria  of  Nature,  to 
notice  what  is  fixed  among  her  fluctuations,  and  what  is  regular 
among  her  apparent  irregularities  ;  and  it  is  only  comparatively 
lately,  within  the  last  few  centuries,  that  the  conception  of  a 
universal  order  and  of  a  definite  course  of  things,  which  we 
term  the  course  of  Nature,  has  emerged. 

But,  once  originated,  the  conception  of  the  constancy  of  the 
order  of  Nature  has  become  the  dominant  idea  of  modern 
thought.  To  any  person  who  is  familiar  with  the  facts  upon 
which  that  conception  is  based,  and  is  competent  to  estimate 
their  significance,  it  has  ceased  to  be  conceivable  that  chance 
should  have  any  place  in  the  universe,  or  that  events  should 
depend  upon  any  but  the  natural  sequence  of  cause  and  effect. 
We  have  come  to  look  upon  the  present  as  the  child  of  the 
past  and  as  the  parent  of  the  future ;  and,  as  we  have  excluded 
chance  from  a  place  in  the  universe,  so  we  ignore,  even  as  a 
possibility,  the  notion  of  any  interference  with  the  order  of 
Nature.  Whatever  may  be  men's  speculative  doctrines,  it  is 

this  is  also  the  immediate  cause  for  discussion,  for  the  other  factors  that 
contributed  to  gathering  people  to  hear  the  speaker  were  Professor  Hux- 
ley's reputation  and  the  knowledge  that  he  would  speak  in  defense  of  a 
theory  which  many  persons  considered  startling  if  not  irreligious.  There 
was  no  occasion  to  speak  of  either  of  these  causes.  Moreover,  to  speak 
of  the  first  would  have  been  unbecoming,  and  to  emphasize  the  second 
would  have  defeated  Professor  Huxley's  persuasive  purpose  to  lead  his 
audience  as  gently  and  naturally  as  possible  to  the  consideration  of  his 
theory. 


438  APPENDIX 

quite  certain  that  every  intelligent  person  guides  his  life  and 
risks  his  fortune  upon  the  belief  that  the  order  of  Nature  is  con- 
stant, and  that  the  chain  of  natural  causation  is  never  broken. 

In  fact,  no  belief  which  we  entertain  has  so  complete  a 
logical  basis  as  that  to  which  I  have  just  referred.  It  tacitly 
underlies  every  process  of  reasoning ;  it  is  the  foundation  of 
every  act  of  the  will.  It  is  based  upon  the  broadest  induc- 
tion, and  it  is  verified  by  the  most  constant,  regular,  and 
universal  of  deductive  processes.  But  we  must  recollect  that 
any  human  belief,  however  broad  its  basis,  however  defen- 
sible it  may  seem,  is,  after  all,  only  a  probable  belief,  and 
that  our  widest  and  safest  generalizations  are  simply  state- 
ments of  the  highest  degree  of  probability.  Though  we  are 
quite  clear  about  the  constancy  of  the  order  of  Nature,  at  the 
present  time,  and  in  the  present  state  of  things,  it  by  no 
means  necessarily. follows  that  we  are  justified  in  expanding 
this  generalization  into  the  infinite  past,  and  in  denying,  abso- 
lutely, that  there  may  have  been  a  time  when  Nature  did  not 
follow  a  fixed  order,  when  the  relations  of  cause  and  effect 
were  not  definite,  and  when  extra-natural  agencies  interfered 
with  the  general  course  of  Nature.  Cautious  men  will  allow 
that  a  universe  so  different  from  that  which  we  know  may 
have  existed ;  just  as  a  very  candid  thinker  may  admit  that 
a  world  in  which  two  and  two  do  not  make  four,  and  in  which 
two  straight  lines  do  inclose  a  space,  may  exist.  But  the 
same  caution  which  forces  the  admission  of  such  possibilities 
demands  a  great  deal  of  evidence  before  it  recognizes  them 
to  be  anything  more  substantial.  And  when  it  is  asserted 
that,  so  many  thousand  years  ago,  events  occurred  in  a  man- 
ner utterly  foreign  to  and  inconsistent  with  the  existing  laws 
of  Nature,  men,  who,  without  being  particularly  cautious,  are 
simply  honest  thinkers,  unwilling  to  deceive  themselves  or 
delude  others,  ask  for  trustworthy  evidence  of  the  fact. 

Did  things  so  happen  or  did  they  not  ?  This  is  a  historical 
question,  and  one  the  answer  to  which  must  be  sought  in  the 
same  way  as  the  solution  of  any  other  historical  problem. 


APPENDIX  439 

So  far  as  I  know,  there  are  only  three  hypotheses  which 
ever  have  been  entertained,  or  which  well  can  be  entertained, 
respecting  the  past  history  of  Nature.  I  will,  in  the  first 
place,  state  the  hypotheses,  and  then  I  will  consider  what 
evidence  bearing  upon  them  is  in  our  possession,  and  by  what 
light  of  criticism  that  evidence  is  to  be  interpreted. 

Upon  the  first  hypothesis,  the  assumption  is,  that  phe- 
nomena of  Nature  similar  to  those  exhibited  by  the  present 
world  have  always  existed ;  in  other  words,  that  the  universe 
has  existed  from  all  eternity  in  what  may  be  broadly  termed 
its  present  condition. 

The  second  hypothesis  is,  that  the  present  state  of  things 
has  had  only  a  limited  duration ;  and  that,  at  some  period  in 
the  past,  a  condition  of  the  world,  essentially  similar  to  that 
which  we  now  know,  came  into  existence,  without  any  prece- 
dent condition  from  which  it  could  have  naturally  proceeded. 
The  assumption  that  successive  states  of  Nature  have  arisen, 
each  without  any  relation  of  natural  causation  to  an  antece- 
dent state,  is  a  mere  modification  of  this  second  hypothesis. 

The  third  hypothesis  also  assumes  that  the  present  state 
of  things  has  had  but  a  limited  duration  ;  but  it  supposes  that 
this  state  has  been  evolved  by  a  natural  process  from  an  ante- 
cedent state,  and  that  from  another,  and  so  on ;  and,  on  this 
hypothesis,  the  attempt  to  assign  any  limit  to  the  series  of 
past  changes  is,  usually,  given  up. 

It  is  so  needful  to  form  clear  and  distinct  notions  of  what 
is  really  meant  by  each  of  these  hypotheses  that  I  will  ask  you 
to  imagine  what,  according  to  each,  would  have  been  visible 
to  a  spectator  of  the  events  which  constitute  the  history  of 
the  earth.  On  the  first  hypothesis,  however  far  back  in 
time  that  spectator  might  be  placed,  he  would  see  a  world 
essentially,  though  perhaps  not  in  all  its  details,  similar  to 
that  which  now  exists.  The  animals  which  existed  would 
be  the  ancestors  of  those  which  now  live,  and  similar  to 
them ;  the  plants,  in  like  manner,  would  be  such  as  we  know ; 
and  the  mountains,  plains,  and  waters  would  foreshadow  the 


440  APPENDIX 

salient  features  of  our  present  land  and  water.  This  view 
was  held  more  or  less  distinctly,  sometimes  combined  with 
the  notion  of  recurrent  cycles  of  change,  in  ancient  times; 
and  its  influence  has  been  felt  down  to  the  present  day.  It 
is  worthy  of  remark  that  it  is  a  hypothesis  which  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Uniformitarianisrn,  with 
which  geologists  are  familiar.  That  doctrine  was  held  by 
Hutton,  and  in  his  earlier  days  by  Lyell.  Hutton  was  struck 
by  the  demonstration  of  astronomers  that  the  perturbations 
of  the  planetary  bodies,  however  great  they  may  be,  yet 
sooner  or  later  right  themselves ;  and  that  the  solar  system 
possesses  a  self-adjusting  power  by  which  these  aberrations 
are  all  brought  back  to  a  mean  condition.  Hutton  imagined 
that  the  like  might  be  true  of  terrestrial  changes;  although 
no  one  recognized  more  clearly  than  he  the  fact  that  the  dry 
land  is  being  constantly  washed  down  by  rain  and  rivers  and 
deposited  in  the  sea;  and  that  thus,  in  a  longer  or  shorter 
time,  the  inequalities  of  the  earth's  surface  must  be  levelled, 
and  its  high  lands  brought  down  to  the  ocean.  But,  taking 
into  account  the  internal  forces  of  the  earth,  which,  upheav- 
ing the  sea-bottom,  give  rise  to  new  land,  he  thought  that 
these  operations  of  degradation  and  elevation  might  compen- 
sate each  other;  and  that  thus,  for  any  assignable  time,  the 
general  features  of  our  planet  might  remain  what  they  are. 
And  inasmuch  as,  under  these  circumstances,  there  need  be 
no  limit  to  the  propagation  of  animals  and  plants,  it  is  clear 
that  the  consistent  working-out  of  the  uniformitarian  idea 
might  lead  to  the  conception  of  the  eternity  of  the  world. 
Not  that  I  mean  to  say  that  either  Hutton  or  Lyell  held  this 
conception  —  assuredly  not;  they  would  have  been  the  first 
to  repudiate  it.  Nevertheless,  the  logical  development  of 
their  arguments  tends  directly  toward  this  hypothesis. 

The  second  hypothesis  supposes  that  the  present  order  of 
things,  at  some  no  very  remote  time,  had  a  sudden  origin, 
and  that  the  world,  such  as  it  now  is,  had  chaos  for  its  phe- 
nomenal antecedent.  That  is  the  doctrine  which  you  will 


APPENDIX  441 

find  stated  most  fully  and  clearly  in  the  immortal  poem  of 
John  Milton  —  the  English  Divina  Commedia  —  Paradise 
Lost.  I  believe  it  is  largely  to  the  influence  of  that  remark- 
able work,  combined  with  the  daily  teachings  to  which  we 
have  all  listened  in  our  childhood,  that  this  hypothesis  owes 
its  general  wide  diffusion  as  one  of  the  current  beliefs  of 
English-speaking  people.  If  you  turn  to  the  seventh  book 
of  Paradise  Lost,  you  will  find  there  stated  the  hypothesis 
to  which  I  refer,  which  is  briefly  this:  That  this  visible 
universe  of  ours  came  into  existence  at  no  great  distance  of 
time  from  the  present ;  and  that  the  parts  of  which  it  is  com- 
I  posed  made  their  appearance,  in  a  certain  definite  order,  in 
the  space  of  six  natural  days,  in  such  a  manner  that,  on  the 
first  of  these  days,  light  appeared;  that,  on  the  second,  the 
firmament,  or  sky,  separated  the  waters  above  from  the  waters 
beneath  the  firmament;  that,  on  the  third  day,  the  waters 
drew  away  from  the  dry  land,  and  upon  it  a  varied  vegetable 
life,  similar  to  that  which  now  exists,  made  its  appearance ; 
that  the  fourth  day  was  signalized  by  the  apparition  of  the 
sun,  the  stars,  the  moon,  and  the  planets;  that,  on  the  fifth 
day,  aquatic  animals  originated  within  the  waters ;  that,  on  the 
sixth  day,  the  earth  gave  rise  to  our  four-footed  terrestrial 
creatures,  and  to  all  varieties  of  terrestrial  animals  except 
birds,  which  had  appeared  on  the  preceding  day ;  and,  finally, 
that  man  appeared  upon  the  earth,  and  the  emergence  of  the 
universe  from  chaos  was  finished.  Milton  tells  us,  without  the 
least  ambiguity,  what  a  spectator  of  these  marvellous  occur- 
rences would  have  witnessed.  I  doubt  not  that  his  poem  is 
familiar  to  all  of  you-,  but  I  should  like  to  recall  one  passage 
to  your  minds,  in  order  that  I  may  be  justified  in  what  I 
have  said  regarding  the  perfectly  concrete,  definite  picture  of 
the  origin  of  the  animal  world  which  Milton  draws.  He  says : 

The  sixth,  and  of  creation  last,  arose 
With  evening  harps  and  matin,  when  God  said, 
"  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  soul  living  in  her  kind, 
Cattle  and  creeping  things,  and  beast  of  the  earth, 


442  APPENDIX 

Each  in  their  kind!  "     The  earth  obeyed,  and,  straight 

Opening  her  fertile  womb,  teemed  at  a  birth 

Innumerous  living  creatures,  perfect  forms, 

Limbed  and  full-grown.     Out  of  the  ground  uprose, 

As  from  his  lair,  the  wild  beast,  where  he  wons 

In  forest  wild,  in  thicket,  brake,  or  den ; 

Among  the  trees  in  pairs  they  rose,  they  walked ; 

The  cattle  in  the  fields  and  meadows  green : 

Those  rare  and  solitary ;  these  in  flocks 

Pasturing  at  once,  and  in  broad  herds  upsprung. 

The  grassy  clods  now  calved ;  now  half  appears 

The  tawny  lion,  pawing  to  get  free 

His  hinder  parts  —  then  springs,  as  broke  from  bonds, 

And  rampant  shakes  his  brinded  mane  ;  the  ounce, 

The  libbard,  and  the  tiger,  as  the  mole 

Rising,  the  crumbled  earth  above  them  threw 

In  hillocks ;  the  swift  stag  from  underground 

Bore  up  his  branching  head ;  scarce  from  his  mould 

Behemoth,  biggest  born  of  earth,  upheaved 

His  vastness  ;  fleeced  the  flocks  and  bleating  rose 

As  plants ;  ambiguous  between  sea  and  land, 

The  river-horse  and  scaly  crocodile. 

At  once  caine  forth  whatever  creeps  the  ground, 

Insect  or  worm. 

There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  statement,  nor 
as  to  what  a  man  of  Milton's  genius  expected  would  have 
been  actually  visible  to  an  eye-witness  of  this  mode  of  organ- 
ization of  living  things. 

The  third  hypothesis,  or  the  hypothesis  of  evolution,  sup- 
poses that,  at  any  comparatively  late  period  of  past  time,  our 
imaginary  spectator  would  meet  with  a  state  of  things  very 
similar  to  that  which  now  obtains ;  but  that  the  likeness  of 
the  past  to  the  present  would  gradually  become  less  and  less, 
in  proportion  to  the  remoteness  of  his  period  of  observation 
from  the  present  day;  that  the  existing  distribution  o£  moun- 
tains and  plains,  of  rivers  and  seas,  would  show  itself  to  be 
the  product  of  a  slow  process  of  natural  change  operating  upon 


APPENDIX  443 

more  and  more  widely  different  antecedent  conditions  of  the 
mineral  framework  of  the  earth;  until,  at  length,  in  place  of 
that  framework,  he  would  behold  only  a  vast  nebulous  mass, 
representing  the  constituents  of  the  sun  and  of  the  planetary 
bodies.  Preceding  the  forms  of  life  which  now  exist,  our 
observer  would  see  animals  and  plants  not  identical  with 
them,  but  like  them ;  increasing  their  differences  with  Btheir 
antiquity  and,  at  the  same  time,  becoming  simpler  and  sim- 
pler; until,  finally,  the  world  of  life  would  present  nothing 
but  that  undifferentiated  protoplasmic  matter  which,  so  far 
as  our  present  knowledge  goes,  is  the  common  foundation  of 
all  vital  activity. 

The  hypothesis  of  evolution  supposes  that  in  all  this  vast 
progression  there  would  be  no  breach  of  continuity,  no  point 
at  which  we  could  say  "  This  is  a  natural  process,"  and  "  This 
is  not  a  natural  process  " ;  but  that  the  whole  might  be  com- 
pared to  that  wonderful  process  of  development  which  may 
be  seen  going  on  every  day  under  our  eyes,  in  virtue  of  which 
there  arises,  out  of  the  semi-fluid,  comparatively  homogeneous 
substance  which  we  call  an  egg,  the  complicated  organization 
of  one  of  the  higher  animals.  That,  in  a  few  words,  is  what 
is  meant  by  the  hypothesis  of  evolution.1 

1  Professor  Huxley,  stating  the  three  hypotheses  at  first  as  simply  as 
he  could,  felt  even  then  that  they  sounded  vague,  and  therefore  brought 
in  concrete  illustration  to  make  each  clearer.  When  he  spoke,  far  more 
than  to-day,  discussion  of  the  theory  of  Evolution  made  church-people 
combative  at  once,  because  of  the  essential  contradiction  they  premised 
between  it  and  the  biblical  theory  of  creation.  Knowing  this,  Professor 
Huxley  carefully  avoided  reference  to  the  Bible,  lest,  before  he  had  placed 
all  the  hypotheses  clearly  before  his  hearers,  he  should  be  involved  in 
explanations  of  his  interpretation  of  the  lines  in  Genesis.  To  avoid  this 
danger,  he  called  the  second  hypothesis  the  Miltonic,  by  the  newness  of 
this  term  arousing  the  curiosity  of  the  audience  and  turning  their  thoughts 
from  the  Bible  to  "Paradise  Lost."  There  could  be  no  doubt  that  he  inter- 
preted correctly  the  lines  he  read :  there  might,  as  he  shows  later,  have 
been  much  discussion  about  any  interpretation  he  gave  of  the  words  in 
Genesis.  By  his  skill  Professor  Huxley  got  the  three  hypotheses  before 
his  audience  without  treating  a  difficult  and  dangerous  topic. 


444  APPENDIX 

I  have  already  suggested  that  in  dealing  with  these  three 
hypotheses,  in  endeavoring  to  form  a  judgment  as  to  which 
of  them  is  the  more  worthy  of  belief,  or  whether  none  is 
worthy  of  belief  —  in  which  case  our  condition  of  mind  shouldS 
be  that  suspension  of  judgment  which  is  so  difficult  to  all  but] 
trained  intellects  —  we  should  be  indifferent  to  all  a  priori 
considerations.  The  question  is  a  questio'n  of  historical  fact. 
The  universe  has  come  into  existence  somehow  or  other,  and 
the  problem  is,  whether  it  came  into  existence  in  one  fashion, 
or  whether  it  came  into  existence  in  another ;  and,  as  an  essen- 
tial preliminary  to  further  discussion,  permit  me  to  say  two  or 
three  words  as  to  the  nature  and  the  kinds  of  historical  evidence. 

The  evidence  as  to  the  occurrence  of  any  event  in  past 
time  may  be  ranged  under  two  heads  which,  for  convenience' 
sake,  I  will  speak  of  as  testimonial  evidence  and  circumstan- 
tial evidence.  By  testimonial  evidence  I  mean  human  testi- 
mony ;  and  by  circumstantial  evidence  I  mean  evidence  which 
is  not  human  testimony.  Let  me  illustrate  by  a  familiar 
example  what  I  understand  by  these  two  kinds  of  evidence, 
and  what  is  to  be  said  respecting  their  value. 

Suppose  that  a  man  tells  you  that  he  saw  a  person  strike 
another  and  kill  him ;  that  is  testimonial  evidence  of  the  fact 
of  murder.  But  it  is  possible  to  have  circumstantial  evidence 
of  the  fact  of  murder ;  that  is  to  say,  you  may  find  a  man 
dying  with  a  wound  upon  his  head  having  exactly  the  form 
and  character  of  the  wound  which  is  made  by  an  axe,  and,  with 
due  care  in  taking  surrounding  circumstances  into  account, 
you  may  conclude  with  the  utmost  certainty  that  the  man  has 
been  murdered ;  that  his  death  is  the  consequence  of  a  blow 
inflicted  by  another  man  with  that  implement.  We  are  very 
much  in  the  habit  of  considering  circumstantial  evidence  as 
of  less  value  than  testimonial  evidence,  and  it  may  be  that, 
where  the  circumstances  are  not  perfectly  clear  and  intelli- 
gible, it  is  a  dangerous  and  unsafe  kind  of  evidence;  but 
it  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  in  many  cases,  circumstantial 
is  quite  as  conclusive  as  testimonial  evidence,  and  that,  not 


APPENDIX  445 

unfrequently,  it  is  a  great  deal  weightier  than  testimonial 
evidence.  For  example,  take  the  case  to  which  I  referred  just 
now.  The  circumstantial  evidence  may  be  better  and  more 
convincing  than  the  testimonial  evidence ;  for  it  may  be 
impossible,  under  the  conditions  that  I  have  defined,  to  sup- 
pose that  the  man  met  his  death  from  any  cause  but  the 
violent  blow  of  an  axe  wielded  by  another  man.  The  cir- 
cumstantial evidence  in  favor  of  a  murder  having  been  com- 
mitted, in  that  case,  is  as  complete  and  as  convincing  as 
evidence  can  be.  It  is  evidence  which  is  open  to  no  doubt 
and  to  no  falsification.  But  the  testimony  of  a  witness  is 
open  to  multitudinous  doubts.  He  may  have  been  mistaken. 
He  may  have  been  actuated  by  malice.  It  has  constantly 
happened  that  even  an  accurate  man  has  declared  that  a  thing 
has  happened  in  this,  that,  or  the  other  way,  when  a  careful 
analysis  of  the  circumstantial  evidence  has  shown  that  it. did 
not  happen  in  that  way,  but  in  some  other  way.1 

IV 

CLASH  IN  OPINION  AND  SPECIAL  ISSUES 

RESOLVED  :  That  Harvard  should  Engage  a  Permanent  Profes- 
sional Coach  for  the  Varsity  and  Freshman  Rowing  Squads 

I.  The  Question  arises  from  the  following  facts. 

A.  In  the  last  seventeen  years  Harvard  has  won  but 
three  Varsity  races,  and  few  Freshman  races. 

B.  Complaint  has  been  made  that   the  coaching  is  at 
fault,  in  that 

1  This  careful  distinction  between,  and  illustration  of,  testimonial  and 
circumstantial  evidence  shows  how  careful  Professor  Huxley  was  not  to 
leave  in  his  hearers'  minds  any  vagueness  as  to  his  terms.  There  is  a 
popular  feeling  that  circumstantial  evidence  is  not  very  trustworthy,  and 
since  all  of  the  proof  Professor  Huxley  intended  to  use  in  support  of  his 
theory  was  circumstantial  evidence,  it  was  necessary  to  do  away  with  this 
prejudice  in  the  minds  of  his  hearers. 


446  APPENDIX 

1.  Harvard's  losing  crews  have  usually  been  coached 
by  amateurs. 

2.  The  winning  crews  of  opponents  have  usually  been 
coached  by  professionals. 

C.  Yielding  to  this  complaint,  Harvard  has  twice  tried 
professional  coaching  for  her  crews,  viz. 

1.  In  1897  and  1898  Mr.  Lehmann,  an  English  oars- 
man, was  employed. 

2.  In  1903  Mr.  Colson,  a  Cornell  oarsman,  was  paid 
to  coach  Harvard  crews. 

D.  Although  these  coaches  failed  to  turn  out  winning 

crews,  to  many  the  following  explanation  seems 
satisfactory,  viz. 

1.  They  were  not  retained  long  enough  to  give  pro- 
fessional coaching  a  fair  trial. 

E.  In   view  of    this    explanation   many   Harvard    men 
believe  that  the  Athletic  Committee  should  at  once 
engage  a  professional  coach  for  the  intercollegiate 
races  in  the  spring. 

II.  Those  who   favor   professional    coaching   maintain   the 
following  points. 

A.  Harvard's  defeats  cannot   be   attributed  to  lack  of 
suitable  material,  since 

1.  Harvard  has  more  students  than  her  victorious  rivals. 

2.  There  is  no  evidence  that  her  students  are  physi- 
cally inferior. 

3.  There  is  no  indication  that  they  are  less  interested 
in  rowing. 

B.  The  real  cause  for  defeats  is  found  in  the  system  of 
coaching,  since 

1.  Under  amateur  coaching  there  has  been  frequent 
change  of  policy,  — 

a.  There  have  been  four  coaches  in  the  last  eight 
years. 

2.  Amateur  coaches  have  not  been,  sufficiently  well 
informed  in  the  sport. 


APPENDIX  447 

C.  These  defects  in  coaching  would  be  removed  by  a 
permanent  system  of  professional  coaching,  since 

1.  One  man  will  be  given  several  years  of  full  control 
as  at  Yale  and  Cornell. 

2.  The  coach  will  be  an  expert  in  all  the  details  of 
his  sport,  since 

a.  He  devotes  his   life  to  it  (Courtney,   Colson, 
Ten  Eyck,  etc.). 

b.  He  completely  masters  the  mechanical  details 
(rigging,  oars,  seats,  etc.). 

c.  He  masters  fine  points  of  excellent  oarsmanship 
(dip,  catch,  leg-drive,  length  of  stroke,  recovery, 
etc.). 

3.  He  will  be  in  a  position  to  choose  the  best  men  for 
the  crews  —  in  that 

a.  He  watches  the  men  from  the  time  they  begin 
rowing  in  the  graded  or  class  crews. 

b.  He  is  an  expert  in  judging  physical  and  mental 
fitness  (weight,  strength,  length  of  reach,  deter- 
mination, etc.). 

c.  He  is  a  master  of  scientific  training. 

d.  Much  less  than  a  graduate  amateur  coach  is  he 
given  to  favoritism. 

D.  The  argument  that  professional  coaching  is  likely  to 
result  in  deterioration  of  true  sportsmanship  is  not 
true,  since 

1.  Eowing    offers    practically    no    opportunities    for 
roughness  or  foul  tactics. 

2.  Harvard  professionals  have  been  men  of  unques- 
tioned sportsmanship. 

3.  The  professional  .coaches  of  other  institutions  are 
gentlemanly   and   sportsmanlike  (Courtney,   Ken- 
nedy, C.  Day). 

4.  At  present  the  men  who  comprise  the  Varsity  and 
Freshman  squads  are  grounded  in  the  rudiments 
of  the  sport  by  professionals. 


448  APPENDIX 

5.  Professional  coaching  is  not  considered  undesirable 
in  other  branches  of  Harvard  intercollegiate  ath- 
letics, where  foul  tactics  are  much  more  possible. 

6.  Teams   coached    by   professionals   against   which 
Harvard  contests  are  sportsmanlike. 

IS.  The  consideration  of  the  money  expended  is  not  a 
strong  objection,  in  that 
1.  The  salary  is  small. 

III.  Those  who  favor  the  retention  of  amateurs  as  coaches 
contend  as  follows: 

A.  That  Harvard's  material  may  be  assumed  to  be  equal 
to  that  of  her  rivals. 

B.  The  argument  that  our  defeats   are  due  to  lack  of 
"professional  coaching  is  not  convincing,  since 

1.  We  have  lost  all  three  races  with  crews  coached 
by.  professionals. 

2.  We  have  won  two  races  with  crews  coached  by 
amateurs. 

3.  English   amateur   crews   defeat   American   crews 
coached  by  professionals. 

C.  Harvard's  crews  have  been  coached  under  a  disad- 
vantage, in  that 

1.  The  system  has  frequently  changed. 

2.  Some  of  the  coaches  have  not  been  experts. 

Z>.  It  is  possible  to  remedy  these  disadvantages  under  a 
system  of  graduate  amateur  coaching. 

1.  It  is  not  impossible  to  secure  a  graduate  amateur 
coach  who  may  remain  several  years. 

a.  The  time  required  is  not  great. 

b.  There  are  usually  "  moneyed  "  men  among  row- 
ing enthusiasts. 

c.  Mr.  Bancroft  did  coach  for  several  years. 

2.  Several  graduates  might  act  as  under-coaches  and 
in  turn  continue  the  system  as  head-coaches. 

3.  Yale  retains   practically  the  same  system  under 
both  professional  and  amateur  coaches. 


APPENDIX  449 

E.  An  amateur  coach  may  be  as  well  informed  as,  or 
even  better  than,  a  professional. 

1.  He  may  have  all  the  professional's   mastery  of 
detail. 

2.  Being  a  college  man,  he  can  arouse  a  more  deter- 
mined spirit  among  his  oarsmen. 

F.  A  vital  objection  to  professional  coaching  is  that  it 
lowers  the  standard  of  pure  sportsmanship. 

1.  The  only  standard  of  success  for  a  professional 
is  victory. 

2.  Amateurs  see  honor  in  a  well-fought  contest  even 
though  it  results  in  defeat. 

3.  An   amateur    sees   that    sport    for    sport's    sake, 
friendly  if  fierce   rivalry,  well-rounded  physical 
excellence,  etc.,  are  the  true  aims  of  sport. 

4.  Though  it  may  be  true  that  crew.s  coached  by  pro- 
fessionals do  not  resort  to  foul  tactics,  yet 

4'.  Many  instance's  can  be  cited  where  men  coached 

by  professionals  in  other  sports  have. 
G.  The  idea  of  paying  money  for  true  sport  seems  to  be 
repugnant. 

1.  Even  now   the   Corporation  of   Harvard  is  con- 
sidering the  abolition   of  gate-receipts. 
IV.  Two  terms  need  explanation. 

A.  Professional  coaches,  as  in  other  branches  of  athletics, 
are   men   who   receive    compensation    above   actual 
expenses. 

B.  True  sportsmanship  may  be  defined  as  meaning  a 
desire  to  secure  not  only  the  highest  efficiency  but 
also  clean  tactics  and  a  friendly  if  earnest  rivalry 
with  opponents. 

V.  Several  considerations  may  be  omitted  from  the  discus- 
sion. 
A.  Three  points  are  admitted  by  both  sides. 

1.  There  has  been  a  lack  of  uniformity  in  Harvard's 
coaching. 


450  APPENDIX 

2.  Harvard  should  bend  every  fair  effort  to  secure 
more  efficient  crews. 

3.  To  this  end  uniformity  of  system  is  indispensable. 

B.  The  advocates  of  amateur   coaching  are  willing  to 
grant  three  things : 

1.  Harvard's  material  is  as  good  as  her  rivals'. 

2.  This  desirable  uniformity  might  be  secured  by  the 
affirmative  plan. 

3.  No  small  tricks  are  possible  in  rowing. 

C.  As  extraneous  to  this  discussion,  the  following  may 
be  omitted  from  consideration  : 

1.  All  analogies  between  American  and  English  oars- 
manship, since 

a.  The  conditions  of  climate,  temperament,  train- 
ing,  and  experience  in  rowing  are  entirely  dif- 
ferent. 

2.  Favoritism  on  the  part  either  of  amateurs  or  pro- 
fessionals, since 

a.  Either  would  realize  that  it  is  absolutely  impera- 
tive for  Harvard  to  get  the  best  crews  possible. 

D.  Both  sides  agree  to  waive  discussion  of  the  finan- 
cial consideration,  since 

1.  The  amount  of  money  is  small. 

2.  The  principle  as  to  paying    money  for   coaches 
should  be  decided  for  all  athletics,  not  for  one 
sport  alone. 

VI.  With  these  considerations  omitted,  the  question  seems  to 
turn  on  the  following  issues : 

A.  Could  the  admittedly  desirable  uniformity  be  secured 
under  amateur  coaching,  in  that 

1.  One  man  could  serve  for  several  years? 

2.  He  could  train  men  to  take  his  place  and  main- 
tain his  system  ? 

B.  If  not,  would  the  acknowledged  inefficiency  of  our 
crews  be  removed  by  professional  coaching,  since 
1.  It  is  granted  that  uniformity  would  ensue  ? 


APPENDIX  451 

2.  A  professional  coach,  greatly  surpasses  an  amateur 
in  knowledge  of  the  sport,  in  that 

a.  He  devotes  his  life  to  it  ? 

b.  He  completely  masters  the  mechanical  details  ? 

c.  He  masters  fine  points  of  excellent  oarsman- 
ship ? 

3.  He  will  be  in  a  position  to  choose  the  best  men 
for  the  crews,  in  that 

a.  He  watches  the  men  constantly  ? 

b.  He  is  an  expert  in  judging  physical  and  mental 
fitness  ? 

c.  He  is  a  master  of  scientific  training? 

C.  Would  a  professional  coach   in   rowing   lower   the 
standard  of  Harvard  sportsmanship? 

1.  Has  the  sportsmanship  decreased  in  other  Har- 
vard sports  that  have  been  coached  by  profes- 
sionals ? 

2.  Does  the  experience  of  other  American  Universi- 
ties indicate  that   professional  coaching  injures 
the  standard  of  sportsmanship? 


A  CLASH  IN  OPINION 

Should  the  Dispensary  System  for  the  Sale  of  Intoxicating 
Liquors  be  Adopted  in  New  England  ? 

I.  Those    who   assert  that  the  system  should   be  adopted 
make  the  following  contentions: 

A.  They  say  New  England  needs  a  reform. 

B.  The  excessive  use  of  intoxicants  leads  to  evil  results. 

C.  Some  legislation  to  control  the  drink  traffic  is  necessary. 
D.  They  say  it  would  tend  to  decrease  drunkenness,  since 

•    1.  Less  liquor  would  be  sold,  in  that 

a.  It  would  remove  the  social  temptation  to  drink. 


452  APPENDIX 

b.  There  would  be  no  competition  among  sellers. 

c.  There  would  be  no  private  profit. 
E.  They  say  that  it  is  desirable  politically. 

II.  Those  who  assert  that  the  system  should  not  be  adopted 
make  the  following  contentions: 

A.  They  say  that  it  would  increase  the  evils  of  drunken- 
ness, since 

1.  It  would  remove  the  social  ban  on  drinking. 

2.  There  would  be  increased  drunkenness  in  the  home. 

3.  The  state  would  try  to  increase  sales  of  liquors, 
since 

a.  It  receives  the  profits. 

B.  They  say  that  it  could  not  be  enforced,  since 
1.  Present  saloon  power  would  oppose  it. 

C.  They  say  that  it  would  be  a  great  political  peril,  in  that 
1.  The    system    would    offer    means    for    a   "spoils 

system." 

VI 

A  CLASH  IN  OPINION 

RESOLVED  :   That  Women  should  have  the  Same  Suffrage  Rights 
in  the  United  States  as  Men 

I.  The  contentions  of  the  Affirmative  are  as  follows : 

A.  Woman  suffrage  should  be  granted  on  the  basis  of 
justice,  since 

1.  The  right  of  suffrage  is  one  of  the  essential  rights 
of  citizenship. 

2.  Governments   derive  their  just   powers   from  the 
consent  of  the  governed. 

3.  Taxation  without  representation  is  unjust. 

4.  To  deny  to  women  the  right  to  vote  is  in  effect 
taxation  without  representation. 

5.  The  ballot  is  the  only  efficient  protection  of  woman's 
interests,  since 


APPENDIX  453 

^ 

a.  Men  have  been  slow  to  realize  the  needs  and 
interests  of  women. 

b.  All  improvement  in  the  status  of  women  has  been 
brought  about  largely  by  their  own  endeavors. 

c.  At  this  moment,  women  still  have  standing  legal, 
economic,  and  social  grievances  against  the  gov- 
ernment as  a  result  of  the  "  man  regime." 

B.  Woman  suffrage  will  benefit  the  government,  since 

1.  Politics  will  be  purified. 

2.  New  abilities  will  be  made  available. 

3.  The  educational  system  will  be  improved. 

4.  The  undesirable  voters  will  be  excluded  by  literacy 
and  property  tests. 

C.  Woman  suffrage  is  practicable,  since 

1.  It  has  been  successful  in  the  United  States  wher- 
ever in  operation. 

2.  It  has  been  successful  in  foreign  countries. 

3.  The  Constitutional  changes  will  not  be  difficult  to 
bring  about. 

II.  The  contentions  of  the  Negative  are  as  follows  : 

A.  Woman  suffrage  is  not  demanded  by  justice. 

B.  Woman  suffrage  is  not  necessary,  since 

1.  Woman's   interests  are  already  adequately  repre- 
sented. 

C.  Woman  suffrage  would  confer  the  franchise  upon  per- 
sons by  nature  unfitted  for  politics. 

D.  Woman  suffrage  would  greatly  increase  the  number  of 
illiterate  and  corrupt  voters. 

1.  This  will  be  especially  true  among  the  negro  women 
of  the  South. 

E.  Woman  suffrage  is  not  practicable,  since 

1.  It  would  interfere  with  woman's  natural  duty  as 
wife  and  mother. 

2.  It  would  cause  serious  inconvenience  to  large  num- 
bers of  women. 

3.  It  would  cause  the  deterioration  of  American  home 
life. 


454  APPENDIX 

VII 

A  CLASH  IN  OPINION 

The  Army  Canteen  should  be  Reestablished 

I.  The  canteen  should  be  reestablished,  since 

A.  The  larger  number  of  men  in  the  army  are  addicted  to 
drink. 

B.  The  soldiers  who  are  addicted  to  the  drink  habit  will 
continue  to  drink,  whether  the  canteen  exists  or  not. 

(7.  The  surroundings  at  the  post-exchange  are  better  than 
those  at  the  saloons  which  the  soldiers  must  frequent. 

D.  Intoxication    and    its    attendant    evils,  —  desertion, 
absences  without  leave,  insubordination,  illness,  dis- 
ease, —  exist  in  the  army. 

E.  The  reestablishment  of  the  canteen  would  do  away 
with  many  of  the  evils  of  intoxication,  since 

1.  It  would  save  the  soldier  from  bodily  injury. 

2.  It  would  keep  him  from  being  robbed  in  many  cases. 

3.  It  would  keep  him  from  contracting  many  diseases. 

4.  It  would  improve  discipline  in  the  camp. 

F.  For  the  government  to  supply  places  of  recreation  will 
be  very  expensive,  since 

1.  The  appropriation  of  one  million  dollars  will  hardly 

suffice  for  two  dozen  buildings. 

II.  Those  who  oppose  reestablishment  have  argued  that  the 
canteen  should  not  be  reestablished,  since 

A.  By   the   reestablishment   of   the   canteen   the   actual 
amount  of  liquor  consumed  will  be  increased. 

B.  By  the  reestablishment  of  the  canteen  the  number  of 
men  who  drink  will  be  somewhat  increased. 

C.  It  promotes  drunkenness. 

D.  Drunkenness  is  detrimental  to  the  health  and  discipline 
of  the  army. 

E.  It  is  injurious  to  the  morals  of  the  soldier. 


APPENDIX  455 

F.  It  is  ethically  wrong  for  the  government  to  sanction 
liquor  traffic. 

G.  It  is  injurious  to  the  public  morals. 

H.  The  United  States  will  make  an  appropriation  which 
will  make  up  for  the  loss  of  the  canteen. 

Z  The  United  States  will  be  able  to  construct  buildings 
for  all  the  army  camps  and  maintain  them  at  its  own 
expense. 

VIII 

SPECIMEN  OF  ANALYSIS 

The  Severe  Policy  of  our  Army  Officers  in  the  Philippine 
Islands  to  Suppress  the  Rebellion  and  to  Establish  Civil 
Government  is  not  Justifiable 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  Public  attention  has  been  called  to  the  methods  of  our 
army  officers  in  the  Philippine  Islands  by  the  following 
events : 

A.  Publication  by  newspapers  of  certain  letters  written 
by  some   of  our  soldiers  and  officers,  in  which  our 
officers  were  accused  of  cruelty  against  the  natives. 

B.  General  Miles  came  out  with  the  statement  that  the 
war  was  being  carried  on  with  "  marked  severity." 

C.  Being  reprimanded  by  Secretary  Boot,  General  Miles 
brought  to  light  the  report  of  Colonel  Gardiner  show- 
ing that  severity  was  being  employed. 

D.  An  investigation  was  ordered. 

E.  Major  Waller,  court-martialed  for  shooting  natives, 
was  acquitted  on  the  ground  that  he  acted  under 
orders  of  General  Smith. 

F.  General  Smith,  court-martialed  for  issuance  of  order 
to  "kill  and  burn,"  was  acquitted  May  5th,  1902. 
He  was  later  retired  by  the  President. 


456  APPENDIX 

II.  In  this  argument  the  following  terms  need  explanation : 

A.  By   "officers  in  the  Philippine   Islands"  we  mean 
commissioned  officers,  —  that  is,  all  officers  having 
the  rank  of  lieutenant  or  above. 

B.  By  "rules  of  war"  we  refer  to  the  rules  governing 
the  United  States  army. 

III.  The  following  points  are  admitted  by  both  sides : 

A.  International  law  does  not  apply  in  this  war. 

B.  Eetaliatory  measures,  as  far  as  allowed  by  rules  of 
war,  are  justifiable. 

(7.  "  Concentration  "  is  justifiable. 

D.  The  following  acts,  except  in  retaliation,  according  to 
rules  of  war,  are  unjustifiable,  —  torture,  shooting  of 
prisoners  without  trial,  refusal  to  give  quarter,  exter- 
mination of  peaceful  inhabitants. 

E.  The  policy  of  our  officers  in  the  Philippine  Islands 
has  been  severe  in  these  respects : 

1.  They  have  laid  waste  districts  aiding  insurgents. ' 

2.  They  have  imposed  "  Concentration." 

3.  They  have  exterminated  combatants  so  far  as  rules 
of  war  allow. 

F.  The  decision  of  the  administration  to  put  down  the 
rebellion  and  to  retain  the  Philippine  Islands  is  to  be 
upheld. 

IV.  The  Affirmative  make  the  f-ollnwing  three  contentions  : 

A.  Some  of-Dur  army  officers  have  seen  fit  to  use  the 
following  methods  in  suppressing  the  insurrection, — 
torture,  shooting  prisoners  without  trial,  refusal  to 
give  quarter,  devastation  of  peaceful  districts,  exter- 
mination of  non combatants. 

B.  Such  instances  of  cruelty  on  the  part  of  our  officers 
have  been  sufficiently  numerous  to  be  considered  part 
of  their  policy. 

C.  This  policy  is  unjustifiable  on  the  following  grounds : 
1.  It  is  contrary  to  the  instructions  of  the  adminstra- 
tion. 


APPENDIX  t  457 

2.  It  is  contrary  to  the  rules  of  war. 

3.  It  is  inexpedient  from  the  point  of  view  of  our 
interest. 

4.  It  is  morally  unjustifiable. 

V.  The  Negative  make  the  followjLngJwo_conte.ntions : 

A.  Instances  of  unusual  severity  on  the  part  of  our  offi- 
cers have  not  been  numerous  enough  to  be  considered 
part  of  their  policy. 

B.  Such  instances  as  there  have  been  are  justifiable,  for 

1.  They  have  been  for  purposes  of  retaliation. 

2.  Retaliation,  in  savage  warfare,  is  allowed  by  rules 
of  war  and  by  expediency. 

VI.  The  question  takes  the  following  form : 

A.  Have  the  following  unjustifiable  acts  been  resorted  to  ? 

1.  Torture. 

2.  Shooting  of  prisoners  without  trial. 

3.  Refusal  to  give  quarter. 

4.  Devastation  of  peaceful  districts. 

5.  Extermination  of  noncombatants. 

J5.  If  resorted  to,  have  they  occurred  in  sufficient  number 
to  be  considered  part  of  the  policy  of  our  officers  ? 

C.  Can  these  acts  be  justified  upon  the  following  grounds  ? 

1.  Were  they  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of 
the  administration? 

2.  Were  they  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  war  ? 

3.  Were  they  expedient  ? 

4.  Were  they  morally  justifiable? 


458  APPENDIX 

IX 

SPECIMEN  OF  ANALYSIS 

Should  an  Eight-Hour  Working  Day  be  Adopted  within  the 
United  States? 

I.  The  question  arises  from  the  following  facts : 

A.  Gradual  reductions  have  been  made  from  the  old  labor 
day,  from  sunrise  to  sunset,  till  now  an  average  work- 
ing day  of  eleven  hours  prevails  in  most  countries. 

B.  Many  firms  in  England  have  adopted  an  eight-hour 
day. 

C.  Australia  has  an  eight-hour  day  by  legal  enactment. 

D.  Bills  have  been  introduced  in  Congress  for  the  adop- 
tion of  an  eight-hour  day  and  have  failed. 

K  Several  states  have  adopted  the  eight-hour  day. 

F.  There  is  a  bill  in  Congress  at  present  for  an  eight-hour 
day,  to  apply  to  the  government  employees. 

G.  It  is  a  question  which  directly  affects  all,  employer, 
employee,  and  consumer. 

II.  The  eight-hour  working  day  does  not  apply  to  farm  and 

agricultural  labor. 

III.  The  advocates  of  an  eight-hour  day  base  their  case  on  the 
following  points : 

A.  That  an  eight-hour  day  would  not  be  an  economic 
disadvantage,  in  that 

1.  The  amount  of  production  would  be  maintained, 
since 

(a)  The  successive  reductions  of  the  hours  of  labor 
in   this    country  have   been   followed   by  an 
increase  rather  than  a  diminution. 

(b)  The   amount   of   production   depends   largely 
upon  the  intellectual  and  moral  status  of  the 
laborer. 

(c)  More  laborers  would  be  utilized. 


APPENDIX      .  459 

(d)  Invention  and  the  use  of  new  machinery  would 
be  stimulated. 

2.  Wages  would  not  be  lowered. 

3.  Prices  generally  would  not  be  affected. 

4.  The  total  export  trade  would  not  be  affected. 
(a)  It  would  not  be  according  to  theory. 

(#)  At  present  competition  is  most  marked  with 
countries  where  hours  of  labor  are  shortest. 

(c)  Other  countries  are  also  shortening  their  hours 
of  labor. 

5.  Domestic  trade  relations  would  not  be  affected,  since 
(a)  The  question  assumes  that  the  change  in  the 

laboring  day  would  be  uniform  throughout  the 
United  States. 

B.  An  eight-hour  working  day  would  be  an  advantage  to 
laborers  or  the  working  class,  in  that 

1.  It  would  increase  their  intelligence  and  culture,  in 
that 

(a)  More  time  would  be  given  for  lectures,  read- 
ing, evening  schools. 

2.  It  would  raise  the  standard  of  living. 

(a)  Wants  would  be  created  which  laborers  would 
satisfy. 

3.  The  laborers  would  have  better  health,  in  that 
(a)  They  would  not  have  to  spend  so  much  time  in 

unwholesome  conditions. 

IV.  Those  who  oppose  an  eight-hour  working  day  maintain 
the  following: 

A.  That  an  eight-hour  day  would  be  harmful  to  industry, 
in  that 

1.  It  would  decrease  production,  since 

(a)  Men  can  do  less  in  eight  hours  than  they  can 
in  ten. 

2.  Wages  would  be  decreased,  in  that 

(a)  Employers  would  pay  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  hours  worked. 


460  m        APPENDIX 

3.  Our  export  trade  would  be  injured,  in  that 

(a)  Our  goods  could  not  compete  with  goods  made 
in  countries  where  the  longer  working  day  is 
common. 
B.  An  eight-hour  working  day  is  unnecessary,  in  that 

1.  Ten  or  twelve  hours  will  not  injure  the  workmen 
mentally. 

2.  Ten  or  twelve  hours  will  not  hurt  them  physically. 

3.  Not  all  workmen  desire  the  shorter  working  day. 

4.  The  laborers  in  the  United  States  are  at  present 
prosperous. 

(7.  The  condition  of   the  laboring  class  would  not  be 
improved. 
1.  It  is  not  certain  that  the  time  gained  by  shorter 

hours  would  be  well  spent. 

V.  The  physical  and  intellectual  improvement  of  laboring 
men,  their  moral  condition,  and  the  method  of  adopting 
this  measure  will  not  be  discussed,  in  that 

A.  It  is  generally  admitted  that  if  the  financial  condition 
of  the  laborers  is  not  injured,  an  eight-hour  working 
day  would  improve  the  physical  condition  of  laboring 
men. 

B.  Under  the  same  condition  it  would  improve  the  intel- 
lectual condition  of  the  laboring  class. 

C.  The  negative  grants  for  the  sake  of  argument  that 
the  moral  conditions  of  laborers  would  be  bettered 
under  an  eight-hour  day. 

Z>.  Any  question  as  to  the  method  of  adopting  an  eight- 
hour  day  will  be  waived  for  this  discussion. 
VI.  The  three  following  questions  then  become  vital : 

A.  Would  an  eight-hour  working  day  maintain  the  amount 
of  production  ? 

B.  Would  it  decrease  the  wages  of  the  employee  ? 

C.  Would  our  export  trade  be  injured  ? 


APPENDIX  461 


SPECIMEN  OF  ANALYSIS 

The  Changes  in  the  Present  Banking  Law  as  Proposed  by 
Senator  Aldrich  should  be  Adopted 

I.  The  frequent  financial  stringencies  in  our  large  mone- 
tary centers  within  recent  years  have  aroused  wide- 
spread discussion  of  the  efficacy  of  our  present  National 
Banking  Law  to  relieve  them. 

II.  The  existing  Banking  Act,  as  enacted  in  1864,  pro- 
vides : 

A.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  "authorized  to 
designate   certain   national   banks   as   Government 
depositories  and  to  deposit  therein  all  the  receipts 
of  the  United  States,  except  those  from  customs." 
(Senator  Aldrich,  Cong.  Eec.,  Feb.  24,  '03.) 

B.  The  depository  banks  give  as  security  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  bonds  of  the  United  States  to 
the  full  amount  of  deposits. 

III.  The  critics  of  the  present  act  base  such  criticism  upon 
the  fact  that : 

A.  Since  it  provides  no  easy  means  of  getting  rid  of 
large  surpluses  locked  up  in  the  national  Treasury, 
a  stringency  in  the  money  market  often  occurs  at  a 
season  when  money  is  most  needed. 

IV.  This  financial  stringency  is  attributed  to  provisions  of 
the  Present  Banking  Act,  namely,  that : 

A.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  expressly  pro- 
hibited by  the  existing  act  from  depositing  customs 
receipts  in  the  national  depositories. 

B.  The  Secretary  can  accept  only  United  States  Bonds 
to  secure  all  government  deposits. 

Y.  The  Aldrich  Bill,  looking  to  the  abolition,  or  at  least  miti- 
gation, of  such  financial  stringencies,  provides  that : 


462  APPENDIX 

A.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may  place  on  deposit 
with  national  banks  customs  receipts  as  well  as  other 
government  receipts. 

B.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may,  at  his  discretion, 
accept  as  security  besides  the  bonds  of  the  United 
States  the  following : 

1.  Bonds  or  other  interest-bearing  obligation  of  any 
state. 

2.  Any  legally  authorized  bonds  issued  for  municipal 
purposes  by  any  city  in  the  United  States  which 
has  been  in  existence  as  a  city  for  a  period  of 
twenty-five  years,  and  which  for  a  period  of  ten 
years  previous  to  such  deposit  has  not  defaulted 
in  payment  of  any  authorized  debt,  and  which 
has  at  such  date  more  than  50,000  inhabitants, 
as  established  by  the  last  census,  and  whose  net 
indebtedness  does  not  exceed  10%  of  the  valu- 
ation of  the  taxable  property  therein. 

3.  The  first  mortgage  bonds  of  any  railroad  com- 
pany, not  including  street  railway  bonds,  which 
has  paid  dividends  of  not  less  than  4%  per  annum 
regularly  and  continuously  on  its  entire  capital 
stock  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  10  years  next 
previous  to  the  deposit  of  the  bonds. 

4.  The  2%  bonds  issued  to  appropriate  funds  for 
the  construction  of  the  Isthmian  canal. 

C.  The  United  States  shall  have  a  first  lien  on  the 
current  assets  of  the  depository  for  the  repayment 
of  the  deposits. 

D.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  may  at  his  discretion 
require  the  depository  to  increase  or  change  the 
character  of  the  securities  already  deposited. 

E.  The  national  banks  shall  pay  for  the  use  of  public 
money  deposited  a  rate  of  interest  not  less  than 
l-j-%  per  annum,  the  rate  to  be  determined  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  at  his  discretion. 


APPENDIX  463 

VI.  The  Affirmative  contend  that : 

A.  The  accumulated  surplus  in  the  Treasury  causes  a 
stringency  in  the  money  market. 

B.  This  surplus  will  be  removed  by  the  Aldrich  Bill. 
VII.  The  Negative  contend  that : 

A.  The  cause  of  the  stringencies  is  that  Bankers  do 
not  keep  a  large  enough  reserve. 

B.  The  Aldrich  Bill  will  not  prevent  these  stringencies 
by  causing  the  Bankers  to  keep  a  larger  reserve. 

VIII.  The  Affirmative  admit  that  the  Aldrich  Bill  will  not 

cause  the  Banks  to  keep  a  larger  reserve. 
IX.  The  Negative  admit  that  the  Aldrich  Bill  will  do  away 

with  the  surplus. 
X.  The  issue  then  narrows  down  to  the  following : 

A.  Is  the  cause  of  the  stringency  the  surplus  of  cus- 
toms receipts  in  the  Treasury,  or  is  it  the  failure 
of  Bankers  to  keep  on  hand  a  large  enough  reserve  ? 

XI 

SPECIMEN  OF  ANALYSIS 

The  Tuition  in  Harvard  College  should  be  Increased  from  $150 

to  $225 

L  According  to  President  Eliot's  report,  1902-'03,  there 
was  a  deficit  of  over  $40,000  for  the  expenses  incurred 
by  Harvard  College,  due  to  the  following  causes : 

A.  A  $43,144.59  increase  in  the  salary  list. 

B.  $3,342.42  paid  on  the  excess  of  running  expenses 
of  Stillman  Infirmary  over  receipts. 

(7.  $1654.15  paid  for  running  of  Semitic  Museum. 

D.  $2390.16     "      «         "         «  New  Lecture  Hall. 

E.  $2,328.06    "      «         «         «  Germanic  Museum. 

F.  $21,264.00  loss  by  having  to  give  up  interest  on 
certain  bequests  transferred  to  the  Medical  School 


464  APPENDIX 

G.  $10,114.90  paid  on  debt  of  School  of  Veterinj 

Surgery. 

II.  Treasurer  Charles  F.  Adams  proposed  on  this  account 
an  increase  of  the  tuition  fee  of  Harvard  College  from 
$150  to  $225. 

III.  In  speaking  of  Harvard  College  we  mean  to  exclude 
the  professional  schools. 

IV.  Those  who  favor  making  this  increase  in  tuition  fees 
make  two  contentions. 

A.  At  the  present  tuition,  the  welfare  of  the  college  is 
threatened  by  lack  of  funds,  in  that 

1.  Annual  deficit  cannot  be  avoided  without  mate- 
rially decreasing  the  college's  efficiency. 

2.  There  is  no  other  way  to  meet  this  deficit. 

B.  An  increase  of  $75  in  tuition  is  a  desirable  way  to 
meet  this  deficit  and  lack  of  funds,  in  that 

1.  Sufficient  funds  would  be  furnished  to  enable' 
the  college  to  maintain  its  position  and  developi 
for  many  years. 

2.  It  would  not  materially  affect  the  number  of 
students. 

3.  It  would  not  be  a  step  away  from  democracy. 

V.  Those  who  oppose  the  increase,  on  the  other  hand, 
make  two  contentions. 

A.  The  deficit  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  changing 
the  tuition  fee  to  $225,  in  that 

1.  The  deficit  is  only  temporary  and  is  no  cause 
for  alarm. 

B.  The  proposed  plan  would  be  damaging  to  the  col- 
lege, in  that 

1.  It  would  materially  decrease  the  number  of  stu- 
dents. 

2.  It  would  be  sacrificing  democracy  to  conservatism. 
VI.  For  this  discussion  both  sides  agree  that  if  there  is  to 

be  any  increase  it  shall  be  $75.    No  relative  amounts 
are  to  be  discussed. 


APPENDIX  465 

VII.  The  Negative  admits  that  the  proposed  plan  would  meet 

the  deficit. 
VIII.  The  special  issues  therefore  are  the  following  questions : 

A.  Is  the  said  deficit  weighty  enough  to  cause  a  change 
in  the  existing  policy,  in  that 

1.  Is  it  permanent? 

2.  Is  there  any  other  way  to  meet  it  ? 

B.  Is  said  change  of  such   magnitude  that  it  would 
be  damaging  to  the  institution   in  the  following 
respects  : 

1.  Would  it  cause  the  loss  of  a  considerable  number 
of  students  ? 

2.  Would  it  be  a  step  away  from  democracy? 

XII 

SPECIMEN  OF  ANALYSIS 

The  Cecil  Rhodes  Scholarships  for  the  United  States  will 
Accomplish  the  Purpose  of  their  Founder 

I.  The  will  of  Cecil  Ehodes  establishes  for  each  state  and 
territory  of  the  United  States  two  Oxford  scholarships 
of  $1500  each. 

II.  The  will  specifies  the  following  qualifications  for  can- 
didates : 

A.  Literary  and   scholastic  attainments,  which   shall 
count  T\  and  which  shall  be  determined  by  exam- 
ination. 

B.  Fondness   for   and    success   in   out-of-door   sports, 
which  shall  count  -fa  and  which  shall  be  determined 
by  ballot  by  the  fellow-students  of  the  candidate. 

C.  Qualities  of  manhood,  truth,  courage,  attention  to 
duty,   sympathy  for  the  weak,  unselfishness,  and 
fellowship,    which   shall    count    •£$   and  shall    be 
determined  by  vote  of  fellow-students. 


466  APPENDIX 

D.  Exhibition  during  school  days  of  force  of  characte 
and  of  instincts  to  lead  and  to  take  an  interest  ic 
his  schoolmates,  which  shall  count  T2^  and  shall  b 
determined  by  the  head  master  of  the  school. 

III.  The  recipients  of  the  scholarships  are  to  be  separatee 
among  the  various  colleges  of  Oxford. 

IV.  The  purpose  of   Cecil   Rhodes   in   establishing  thes 
scholarships  was  to  increase  the  good  will  between  th 
United  States  and  England.     He  hoped  to  do  this  b; 
educating  in  England  young  Americans  who  seeme( 
likely  to  become  influential  men  in  their  own  country. 

V.  Both  sides  admit  the  following  : 

A.  Three  years'  residence  at  Oxford  is  time  enough  t 
cause  these  men  to  desire  a  closer  attachment  o 
the  United  States  to  England. 

B.  The  majority  of  these  students  will  return  to  th 
United  States. 

C.  Men  are  eligible  for  these  scholarships  who  hav 
gone  no  farther  than  through  their  Sophomore  yea 
at  college. 

VI.  The  Affirmative  contend  as  follows  : 

A.  These  men  will  become  influential  Americans. 

B.  As  influential  men  they  will  be  able  to  create  a  be1 
ter  feeling  in  the  United  States  towards  England. 

VII.  The  Negative  admit  that  if  these  men  become  influential 
they  will  be  able  to  create  in  the  United  States  a  better] 
feeling  towards  England,  but  contend  as  follows : 

A.  The  qualifications  named  by  Rhodes  do  not  as  a] 
rule  make  influential  Americans. 

B.  The   men  selected  will  not  be  the  most  desirable 
American  youths. 

C.  The  Oxford  training  will  not  fit  the  men  selected  i 
to  become  influential  Americans. 

VIII.  The  special  issues  then  become  : 

A.  Do  the  qualifications  named  by  Rhodes  as  a  rule 
make  influential  Americans  ? 


APPENDIX  467 

B.  Will  the  men  selected  be  the  most  desirable  Ameri- 
can youths  ? 

C.  Will  the  Oxford   training  fit  the  men  selected  to 
become  influential  Americans? 


XIII 

BRIEF  FOE  EVIDENCE  EXERCISE  No.  10  — 
REFUTATION 

Brief  U 

Should  Capital  Punishment  be  Abolished  ? 
INTRODUCTION 

I.  In  former  times  a  long  category  of  crimes  were  punished 
by  the  infliction  of  death  —  usually  by  hanging  —  on  the 
guilty.  As  time  went  on,  one  after  another  of  these 
crimes  were  expunged  from  the  national  code,  till  at 
present  murder  is,  generally  speaking,  the  only  cjjime 
punished  with  loss  of  life.  The  question  now  arises^ 
"  Why  not  abolish  capital  punishment  for  murder  ? " 

II.  Capital  punishment  is  punishment  involving  the  for- 
feiture of  life,  inflicted  on  a  person  for  a  crime,  by  the 
authority  to  which  the  offender  is  subject. 

II.  Three  theories  concerning  the  design  of  punishment  are 
held. 

A.  Reformation  of  the  criminal. 

B.  Retribution. 

C.  Prevention. 

BRIEF  PROPER 

Capital  punishment  should  be  abolished,  for 
I.  It  has  done  irrevocable  wrong,  for 

A.  Inequality  and  unfairness  exist  in  the  administration 
of  justice,  for 


468  APPENDIX 

1.  In  some  places  criminals  are  much  better  hanged 
&  than  in  others,  for 

a.  Hanging  in  the  country  is  done  by  amateurs. 

2.  The  same  punishment  is  inflicted  on  every  person 
who  commits  murder,  for 

a.  No  allowance  is  made  for  the  kind  of  murder 
perpetrated. 

3.  A  certain  class  of  criminals  is  more  easily  put  to 
death  than  others,  for 

a.  It  is  hard  to  hang  a  person  who  holds  a  high 
social  position  in  the  community. 

b.  It  is  more  difficult  to  put  to  death  a  person  of 
wealth  than  a  person  of  little  or  no  means. 

4.  A  man  hanged  in  one  part  of  the  country  escapes  in 
another,  for 

a.  Certain  parts  of  the  country  have  abolished  the 
death  penalty. 

b.  The  farther  west  you  go  the  harder  it  is  to  condemn. 

5.  Murderers  are  hanged  at  certain  times  who  would 
not  be  hanged  at  others,  for 

a.  Much  depends  on  the  governor,  for 

(i)  If  he   is  a  soft,  weak,   conceited,  heartless 
man,  his  judgment  is  apt  to  be  partial. 

b.  When    the    murder    is   general  and  people  are 
alarmed  for  their  safety,  the  criminal  will  have 
few  chances  to  escape. 

c.  If  some  time  has  elapsed  between  the  crime  and 
the  conviction  and  the  community  is  unconscious 
of  insecurity,  he  will  have  many  hopes  of  escap- 
ing the  severe  penalty. 

A   d.  It  is  always  more  difficult  to  convict  after  an 
execution  than  before,  for 
(i)  Experience  proves  it. 

6.  The  laws  of  the  land  are  constantly  disregarded  and 
acts  performed  which  they  neither  recognize  norj 
allow,  for 


APPENDIX  469 

a.  Although  they  state  that  every  murderer  should 
forfeit  his  life,  yet 

(i)  Many  guilty  men  are  inflicted  with  a  lighter 
punishment  or  pardoned.1 

b.  Of  two  men  found  guilty  of  capital  offense,  one 
is  violently  executed,  the  other  is  allowed   to 
escape,  because 

(i)  The  sympathies,  desires,  and  excited  passions 
of  the  public  are  allowed  to  control,  if  not 
defy,  the  carrying  out  of  the  law.2 

7.  The  innocents  are  frequent^  put  to  death  withuthe 
guilty,  and  {J*A4-4t*f   .)  <~ 

8.  Death  destroys  the  only  proof  of  innocence. 

9.  Though  it  may  be  argued  that  other  punishments 
involve  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  yet 

a.  The  dead  £an  receive  no  reparation. 

B.  Offenses  once  capital  are  no  longer  punished  with  death.8 

C.  The  assertion  that  capital  punishment  is  a  universal 
necessity  cannot  be  proved,  for 

1.  Its  advocates  base  their  assertion  merely  on  their/' 
opinion  of  what  is  best  for  society,  for  ^ 
a.  The  fear  of  change  of  punishment  is  associated 

with  an  idea  of  certain  ruin  whenever  the  change^ 
shall  take  place. 

2.  A  mere  opinion  cannot  define  law  and  duty  in  the 
case  of  life  and  death.4 

3.  They  cannot  rely  on  the  principles  of  retaliation,  for 
a.  The  principle   of   retaliation   is   forbidden   and 

disclaimed.5 

4.  They  cannot  rely  on  the  principle  of  revenge,  for 

a.  All  purpose  of  revenge  is  indignantly  disowned. 

1  Westminster  Review,  Vol.  17,  p.  57. 

2  North  American  Review,  Vol.  62,  p.  52. 
8  Idem,  Vol.  62,  p.  48. 

4  Idem,  Vol.  62,  p.  48. 
6  Matthew  5:  39. 


470  APPENDIX 

5.  They  cannot  rely  on  the  principle  of  self-defense,  for 

a.  The  right  of  taking  life  depends  on  the  emer-1 
gency. 

b.  It  has  not  lessened  the  number  of  murders. 

D.  The  assertion  that  capital  punishment  is  sanctioned  bj 
divine  authority  cannot  be  supported,  for 

1.  Passages  in  the  Bible  which  seem  to  uphold  thi 
theory  are  capable  of  different  interpretations,  for 

a.  The  word  shall  in  Genesis,  ninth  chapter, 
verse,  on  which  the  whole  scriptural  argumei 
depends,  can  by  permission  of  the  Hebrew  anc 
English  languages   be  changed  to  will  and   so 
express  simply  the  great  retributive  law  of  God's 
providence.1 

b.  The  Hebrew  future  does  not  always  stand  for  the 
imperative. 

2.  The  Mosaic  code  was  made  for  the  Hebrews  and  is 
not  binding  for  other  nations. 

3.  The*re  are  other  passages  of  equal  importance  that 
assert  the  contrary.2 

4.  It  is  contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  Christianity,  for 
a.  The  supreme  rule  is  to  return  good  for  evil. 

5.  The  example  of  Christ  does  not  advocate  it,  for 
a.  He  spared  many  who  were  guilty  of  murder.8 

6.  The  Jewish  penalties  and  retaliations  which  com- 
prised originally  the  very  law  of  life  for  life,  have 
been  repealed  by  Christ. 

II.  Capital  punishment  fails  to  support  any  one  of  the  three 
theories  concerning  the  design  of  punishment,  for 
A.  Though  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  only  legitimate 

design  of  punishment  should  be  to  reform  the  criminal, 

yet 

1.  Capital  punishment  does  not  reform  the  criminal,  for 

1  North  American  Review,  Vol.  62,  p.  44. 

2  Genesis  4 :  14,  15 ;  Exodus  20 :  13. 
8  Genesis  4:16;  Exodus  2 :  12. 


APPENDIX  471 

a.  Death  cuts  him  off  from  all  further  opportunities 
to  live  a  better  life. 

B.  Though  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  design  of  punish- 
ment should  be  to  retribute  the  guilty  person  for  the 
crime  as  he  deserves,  for 

1.  Capital  punishment  does  not  punish  the  criminal  as 
he  deserves,  for 

a.  The  most  desperate  and  hardened  criminal  is  insen- 
sitive to  the  suffering  he  has  to  endure  and  to  the 
ignominy,  for 
(i)  He  does  not  care  for  his  life. 

C.  Though  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  design  of  punish- 
ment should  be  to  protect  society  from  other  crimes,  yet 

/I    1.  Capital  punishment  fails  to  protect  society,  because 
r         a.  It  does  not  prevent  murder,  for 

(i)  Although  it  is  said  that  the  fear  of  the  gal- 
lows prevents  crime,  yet 
x.  The  desperate  murderer  does  not  calculate 

the  severe  penalty  of  his  .crime,  and 
y.  If  he  did  calculate  the  result,  he  cannot  be 
blind  to  the  fact  that  jurors  are  exception- 
ally difficult  to  convince  in  cases  of  murder 
when  the  evidence  is  circumstantial. 
(ii)  Though  the  objection  has    been  raised  that 
murders  are  committed  in  secret,  for  fear  of 
death,  yet 

x.  Murders  are  committed  in  secret  in  places 
where  the  death  penalty  has  been  abolished. 
(iii)  The  sight  of  executions  has  not  been  a  warn- 
ing,  for 
x.  It  is  demoralizing  in  nature,  for 

(1)  It  is  barbarous. 

(2)  There  is  always  more  or  less  savage 
exultation.1 

i  Westminster  Review,  Vol.  81,  p.  412. 


472  APPENDIX 

(3)  Facts  prove    that  a  large  number  of  I 
criminals  condemned  for  capital  of-J 
fenses  have  attended  executions.1 
2.  It  has  been  abolished  with  advantage  to  society,  foil 

a.  In  certain  parts  of  countries  where  the  death! 
penalty  has  been  abolished,  with  one  exception,! 
a  Swiss  canton,  murders  have  not  increased,2  and! 

b.  In  some  instances  murders  have  been  known  to  j 
decrease.8 

CONCLUSION 

Since,  therefore,  we  have  shown  that  capital  punishment! 
has  done  irrevocable  wrong,  and  that  it  does  not  answer  any  1 
of  the  purposes  of  a  good  punishment,  we  conclude  that  capi-l 
tal  punishment  should  be  abolished. 


XIV 
SPECIMEN  POOR  BRIEF 

Brief  F 

Should  the  Students  ofWellesley  College  have  Self-Government? \ 
A.  INTRODUCTION 

I.  The  question  arises,  since 

A.  Some  colleges  are  trying  this  method. 

B.  There  is  a  tendency  at  Wellesley  towards  this  method] 
of  government. 

C.  There  is  a  strong  feeling  among  the  students  in  favor 
of  its  adoption. 

II.  Use  of  term  self-government. 

This  means  that  each  student  shall  govern  herself 
according   to   her   good  judgment,    and    shall  work   in 

i  Westminster  Review,  Vol.  62,  pp.  66,  67.  2  Idem,  Vol.  91,  p.  43fl 

3  North  American  Review,  Vol.  81. 


APPENDIX  473 

cooperation  with  the  faculty  for  the  best  interests  of 
herself,  her  fellow-students,  and  the  institution. 
II.  The  students  of  Wellesley  College  should  have  self-gov- 
ernment. 

.5. 'PROOF 

Do  adopt  this  method  of  government  would 
I.  Benefit  the  college,  as  an  institution,  for 

A.  It  would  give  it  the  greatest  strength,  since 

1.  It  would  give  more  unity.    "  In  unity  is  strength." 
a.  Faculty  and  students  united  by 

(i)  Same  aim :  The  greatest  good  of  college  and 

students. 
(ii)  Increase  of  mutual  confidence,  for 

w.  Without  unity  between  faculty  and  stu- 
dents there   is  lack  of  confidence.    See 
state  of  confidence  between  faculty  and 
students  at  Lasell  Seminary. 
x.  Trust  of  students  by  faculty  underlies 

this  government. 

y.  The  students  appreciate  the  trust. 
z.  Students  and  faculty  would  consult  each 
other  on  important  matters. 

B.  It  is  the  only  just  method  of  government,  since 

1.  All  would  share  in  government,  and  "legislation 
without  representation  is  tyranny "  ;  see 

a.  Attitude  of  English  towards  this. 

b.  Attitude  of  Americans  towards  it. 
I.  Benefit  the  students. 

A.  In  spite  of  the  objection  that  relaxation  of  arbitrary 
restraint  of  students  would  tend  to  cause  the  students 
to  act  in  an  unbecoming  or  imprudent  manner. 
1.  Such  an  objection  would  be  granted  in  a  few  cases, 
but  not  for  the  most  part,  since 
a.  Such  action  would  be  restrained  by  increased 
self-respect  of  students. 


474  APPENDIX 

b.  Such,  action  would  be  checked  by  sentiment  of 
faculty  and  students. 

B.  By  increasing  their  self-reliance  and  prudence. 

1.  Self-reliance  and  prudence  most  necessary  to  women 
in  all  spheres  of  life,  — 

As  business  women, 
As  mothers. 

2.  Self-reliance  and  prudence  increased  by  permitting 
the  practice  of  them  in  the  training-school  of  life, 
the  college. 

C.  Since  it  has  benefited  those  that  have  attempted  it. 

1.  Contrast  Lasell  Seminary  and  Bryn  Mawr. 

2.  Tendency  towards  this  method  in  Wellesley  a  suc-i 
cess.    Compare  first  years  of  college  with  present! 
time. 

C.  CONCLUSION 

Since    self-government   would    benefit    the    institution    of 
Wellesley  College  and  its  students,  it  should  be  adopted. 


XV 

SPECIMEN  POOR  BRIEF 

Brief  G- 

Saloons  Conducted  on  the  Plan  of  the  "  Subway  Tavern  "  in  1 
New  York  Promote  Temperance 

I.  Introduction : 

A.  Origin  of  the  Question. 

1.  This  question  was  originated  by  the  recent  action  \ 
of  Bishop  Potter  of  New  York  in   dedicating  aj 
public  saloon  with  religious  exercises. 

2.  This  act  immediately  aroused  a  spirited  discussion 
in  press  and  pulpit,  among  religious  leaders,  tem-j 
perance  workers,  and  the  general  public  as  well. 


APPENDIX  475 

B.  Definition  of  Terms. 

1.  By  the   phrase  "  conducted  on   the  plan  of  the 
'  Subway  Tavern/ "  we  shall  mean  those  saloons 
conducted  on  'the  following  principles. 

a.  The  proprietor  shall  make  no  profits  except  on 
non-alcoholic  drinks  and  beer. 

b.  No  more  inducement  shall  be  given  to  the  sale 
of  alcoholic  than  of  non-intoxicating  drinks. 

c.  Undue  drinking  shall  be  discouraged  by 
i.  Prohibiting  "  treating. " 

ii.  Provision  of  liberal  and  wholesome  lunch. 

d.  The  purest  drinks  only  shall  be  sold. 

e.  Every  reasonable  attempt  shall  be  made  to  make 
the  place  clean,  respectable,  and  attractive. 

2.  In  this  connection  we  shall  mean  by  "  temperance  " 
a  moderate  and  restricted  use  of  alcoholic  liquors, 
in  such  a  degree  as  not  to  cause  a  distinct  physical 
injury. 

C.  Determination  of  Special  Issues. 

1.  Admitted  Matters. 

a.  By  dedicating  this  saloon  with  religious  exer- 
cises, Bishop  Potter  gave  the  sanction  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  to  this  enterprise. 

b.  This  scheme  is  a  sincere  and  honest  attempt 
to  eradicate  the  evils  of  intemperance. 

c.  There  is  admitted  to  be  a  grave  need  of  some 
remedy  for  the  evils  of  intemperance. 

d.  As  yet  no  effectual  remedy  has  been  found. 

2.  Special  Issue. 

a.  Will  saloons    conducted   on   the   plan   of   the 
"  Subway  Tavern/7  providing  that 

a.  There  shall  be  no  profits  except  on  non-alco- 
holic drinks  and  beer  and 

b.  That  no  special  inducements  be  given  for  sale 
of  intoxicating  drinks  and 

0,  That  there  shall  be  no  treating  and 


476  APPENDIX 

d.  That  only  the  purest  drinks  be  sold  and 

e.  That  as  far  as  possible  the  place  be  kept 
clean,  respectable,  and  attractive, 

really  promote  temperance? 
3.  Extraneous  Matter. 

a.  We  shall  regard  the  religious  sanction  given  by 
Bishop  Potter  at  the  opening  of  the  original 
"  Subway  Tavern  "  as  incidental  and  not  essen- 
tial to  this  scheme. 
II.  Brief  Proper : 

Saloons  conducted  on  the  plan  of  the  "Subway  Tavern" 
do  not  promote  temperance,  for 

A.  This  plan,  in  making  the  saloon  respectable,  directly 
encourages  drinking,  for 

1.  It  removes  an  important  restraining  influence,  since 

a.  There  is  a  general  conviction  that  drinking  in 
saloons  is  not  altogether  respectable. 

b.  This    conviction    is   nullified   by   making   the 
saloon  respectable,  and 

c.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  where  this  in- 
fluence has  been  removed,  men  will  more  readily 
yield  to  inclinations  and  temptations,  and 

d.  This    general    argument    is    substantiated    by 
Dean  Richmond  Babbitt  of  Brooklyn,  who  says, 
"the  scheme  undermines,  neutralizes,  and  de- 
stroys temperance  sentiment."1 

B.  The  added   attractiveness  of  such   saloons   induces 
more  drinking  and  more  drinkers,  for 

1.  It  is  only  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a  man  will 
stay  longer  and  drink  more  in  a  place  that  is 
attractive  than  in  one  that  is  repellent ;  there  will 
be  more  drinkers  and  more  drinking  here. 
a.  It  is  admittedly  the  essential  part  of  the  scheme 

that  "  Subway  Tavern "  saloons  shall  be  more 

attractive  than  other  saloons. 

1  Public  Opinion,  August  11,  1904,  p.  184, 


APPENDIX  477 

2.  It  is  also  reasonable  to  suppose  that  light  drinkers 
will  be  enticed  to  continue  the  habit,  thus  being 
under  constant  temptation  to  drink  to  excess. 

3.  Men  that  do  not  drink  at  all  are  more  likely  to 
start  the  habit. 

4.  The  attractiveness  of  the  saloon  will  add  a  diffi- 
culty for  the  man  who  is  trying  to  overcome  the 
drink  habit. 

5.  A  combination  of  all  these  factors  is  conducive  to 
more  drinking,  for 

a.  As  the  Star  of  Hope  says,  "  these  saloons  must 
greatly  increase  drunkenness  and  its  attendant 
crimes." l 

6.  The  New  York  Sun  says,  "  The  saloon  is  already 
too  attractive."2 

C.  Saloons  conducted  on  this  plan  contradict  the  well- 
recognized  principle  of  temperance  work,  that  the 
protection  of  the  young  from  the  drink  habit  is  the 
most  effectual  way  of  curbing  intemperance,  since 

1.  By  its  combination  of  attractiveness  and  respect- 
ability it  induces  non-drinkers,  who  are  for  the 
most  part  young,  to  drink. 

a.  As  has  been  shown  above. 

2.  And  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that,  after  the  drink 
habit  has  been  formed,  only  small  results  can  be 
obtained  by  temperance  work. 

3.  In  this  instance  the  old  adage  is  applicable,  that 
"an  ounce   of  prevention   is  worth  a  pound  of 
cure." 

D.  This  scheme  in  itself  directly  provides  for  the  increase 
of  saloons  in  any  one  community,  since 

1.  All  profits  over  five  per  cent  of  the  original  capi- 
tal are  to  be  used. in  building  more  saloons  to  be 
run  on  the  same  plan. 

1  Literary  Digest,  September  3,  1904,  p.  278. 

2  Idem,  August  13,  1904,  p.  185. 


478  •  APPENDIX 

2.  Naturally,  the  number  of  saloons  will  increase  as 
the  proceeds  increase,  and 

a.  This  per  cent  will  undoubtedly  be  great,  for 
(i)  Financially  the  "  Subway  Tavern "  is  very 
successful. 

(x)  As  has  been  shown  from  the  reports 
in  daily  papers. 

3.  This  contention  is  substantiated  by  the  fact  that 
more  saloons  are  to  be  built  in  New  York  at  once, 
although  the  "Subway  Tavern"  has  been  open  but 
a  short  time. 

a.  This  assertion  is  confirmed  by  the  daily  papers. 
III.  Refutation: 

A.  It  has  been  asserted  by  those  who  favor  the  scheme  that 

1.  The   saloon    cannot   be    eradicated,    therefore   to 
improve  it  will  promote  temperance. 

1'.  We  reply  that  the  scheme  will  not,  in  the  long  run, 
promote  temperance,  since  it  provides  for 

a.  More  drinking. 

b.  More  drinkers. 

c.  More  saloons. 

2.  It  may  be  urged  that  there  are  fewer  inducements 
to  drink,  since 

a.  The  proprietor  has  no  motive  to  induce  drinking. 

2'.  Still  this  is  nullified  by  the  increased  attractive- 
ness of  the  saloon. 
a.  As  has  been  shown  in  our  main  argument. 

2".  Increase  in  number  of  saloons. 

3.  Although  it  may  be  urged  that  the  provision  of 
soft  drinks  will  discourage  drinking, 

3'.  Yet  in  this   respect  the  "Subway"  is  no  better 
than  any  other  saloon,  for 

a.  Soft  drinks  and  good  lunches  may  be  obtained 
at  almost  any  bar. 

4.  It  is  urged  that  by  prohibiting  "  treating  "  a  com- 
mon cause  for  excessive  drinking  will  be  removed. 


APPENDIX  479 

4'.  This  plan,  however,  if  it  proves  successful  could 
be  adopted  in  all  saloons,  without  the  attendant 
evils  of  the  "  Subway "  plan. 
5.  While  in  general  there  may  be  good  points  in  the 

"  Subway  "  scheme,  as  there  undoubtedly  are, 
6'.  Yet  we  contend  that  the  evils  as  outlined  above 

outweigh  these  possible  benefits. 
V.  Conclusion : 

Since  in  making  the  saloon  more  respectable  and  attract- 
ive this  plan  directly  encourages  more  drinking  and  more 
men  to  drink,  and  since  it  violates  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  temperance  work,  and  since  it  provides  for  an 
increase  in  the  number  of  saloons,  and  since  the  advan- 
tages are  outweighed  by  these  evils,  we  conclude  that 
saloons  conducted  on  the  plan  of  the  "  Subway  Tavern  " 
in  New  York  will  not  promote  temperance. 

XVI 

SPECIMEN  POOR  BRIEF 

Brief  H 

Should  Capital  Punishment  be  Abolished? 
INTRODUCTION 

I.  By  capital  punishment  is  meant  punishment  by  death,  by 

any  method,  for  murder. 

II.  By  murder  is  meant  the  willful  and  malicious  destruction 
of  human  life. 

BRIEF  PROPER 

Capital  punishment  should  not  be  abolished,  for l 

A.  It  makes  the  conviction  of  the  innocent  less  likely,  for 
1.  When  death  is  the  penalty  it  leads  to  the  most 
exact  and  critical  examination  of  evidence. 

i  New  Englander,  Vol.  I,  p.  28. 


480  APPENDIX 

2.  It  gives  to  the  accused  the  full  benefit  of  every 
doubt. 

3.  It  lays  the  strongest  hold  on  the  conscience  and 
sympathy  of  both  court  and  witnesses. 

B.  The  argument  that  capital  punishment  should  be  abol- 
ished on  account  of  the  fallibility  of  human  courts  is 
inconsistent,  for 

1.  All  laws  are  administered  by  fallible  human  courts, 
and  by  this  reasoning  it  would  follow  that  all  laws 
ought  to  be  abolished. 

C.  The  argument  that  capital  punishment  should  be  abol- 
ished because  it  is  irremediable,  is  unreasonable,  for 

1.  All  severe  penalties,  such  as  life  imprisonment,  are 
without  a  remedy,  for 

a.  Even  though  the  criminal  is  pardoned  finally, 
the  best  years  of  his  life  have  been  wasted. 

2.  It  is  not  the  object  of  courts  of  justice  to  inflict 
remediable  penalties. 

D.  The  lives  of  thousands  are  preserved  by  the  execution 
of  a  few,  for l 

1.  By  the  destruction   of  leaders  of  violent  mobs,  it 
discourages  the  tendency  to  instigate  such  mobs. 

2.  It  suppresses  the  insurrection  of  anarchists. 

E.  The  statement  that  capital  punishment  is  the  punishing 
of  one  murder  by  the  commission  of  another  is  untrue, 
for 

1.  Punishment  by  death  is  not  attended  by  malicious 
and  revengeful  designs,  for 

a.  To  say  that  it  is,  is  to  deny  all  law  and  all  forms 
of  justice. 

F.  Places  where  the  'law  of  capital  punishment  does  not 
exist  become  a  refuge  for  murderers,  for 

1.  Criminals  desire  the  least  possible  punishment  for 
their  crimes,  as  is  shown  by  the  care  they  take  to 

1  New  Englander,  Vol.  I,  p.  28. 


APPENDIX  481 

escape  detection,  so  would  naturally  plan  to  commit 
crimes  in  a  place  where  the  least  penalty  is  inflicted. 

2.  Authentic  instances  exist  of  murderers  deliberately 
decoying  their  victims  into  jurisdictions  where  the 
death  penalty  does  not  prevail.1 
G.  The  fact  that  some  jurors   fail  to  bring  in  a  verdict 

of  guilty  for  murder  when  capital  punishment  is  the 

penalty  should  not  be  considered,  for 

1.  The  poor  administration  of  a  law  should  not  con- 
demn the  law  itself. 
H.  The  objection  that  there  is  no  time  for  repentance  for 

the  criminal  does  not  hold,  for 

1.  Sufficient  time  is  given  between  the  arrest,  convic- 
tion, and  final  death  for  every  religious  duty.2' 

2.  The  disposition   to   delay  repentance  will   be   the 
same  in  prison  as  out. 

3.  The   shorter  the  time,  and  the  greater  and  more 
pressing  the  need  for  repentance,  the  sooner  is  the 
criminal  likely  to  repent. 

J.  Life  imprisonment  is  an  inadequate  substitute,  for 

1.  There  is  no  higher  penalty  when  the  crime  has  been 
repeated  by 

a.  Murdering  prison  guards  and  warden. 

2.  It  gives  opportunities  for  escape,  for 

a.  Means  are  furnished  for  cooperative  work  by 
(i)  Supplying  tools. 

(it)  Causing  the  removal  of  criminals  from  their 
cells  to  the  prison  workhouse. 

b.  There  is  an  opportunity  for  criminals  to  make 
plans  by  communication  with  each  other. 

3.  The  possibilities  for  pardon  are  very  great,  for 

a.  Statistics  prove  that  within  seven  years  a  man 
has  sixty-three  chances  out  of  one  hundred.8 

1  Forum,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  381. 

2  New  Englander,  Vol.  I,  p.  28. 
*  Nation,  Vol.  XVI,  p.  193. 


482  APPENDIX 

J.  It  is  the  best  means  for  protecting  the  government,  for 

1.  It  is  a  safeguard  against  the  populace  taking  the 
matter  of  life  and  death  into  their  own  hands  by 

a.  Private  vengeance. 

b.  Lynching. 

2.  It  is  a  safeguard  against  the  murder  of  those  in 
public  office  by 

a.  Political  aspirants  or  their  accomplices. 

b.  Anarchists. 

c.  Men  like  Booth,  Guiteau,  and  the  murderer  of 
Carter  Harrison. 

K.  Government  has  a  right  to  maintain  its  own  authority 
by  the  best  means,  even  at  the  expense  of  life,  for 1 
1.  It  is  a  part  of  the  social  compact  in  which  the  state 
originated,  for 

a.  A  social  compact  necessarily  implies  a  surrender 
to  society  of  all  the  rights  and  powers  which  are 
indispensable  to  its  own  preservation. 
L.  It  is  the  most  effective  preventive  of  crime,  for 

1.  It  produces  more  horror  and  dread  of  the  crime  of 
murder  than  any  other  form  of  punishment. 

2.  A  man's  life  is  his  most  important  possession. 

3.  Confessions  of  convicted  criminals  show  that  they 
would   not   have   committed    the   crime   had   they 
thought  that  they  would  suffer  death/2 

M.  Where  it  has  been  abolished  murder  has  increased,  for 

1.  This  has  been  proved  by  statistics  to  be  the  case  in 

a.  Khode  Island. 

b.  Maine. 

c.  Belgium. 

2.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  some  places  where 
it  had  been  abolished  it  has  been  restored,  as  in 

a.  Tuscany. 

b.  Michigan. 

c.  Parts  of  Switzerland. 

Englander,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  562.  2Idew,  Vol.  I,  p.  28, 


APPENDIX  483 

• 

CONCLUSION 

Since  capital  punishment  is  the  best  security  against  the 
conviction  of  the  innocent ;  since  by  it  thousands  of  lives  are 
preserved;  since  places  where  it  does  not  exist  become  a 
refuge  for  murderers ;  since  life  imprisonment  is  an  inade- 
quate substitute  for  it ;  since  it  is  the  best  means  for  protecting 
the  government;  since  furthermore  it  is  the  most  effectual 
deterrent  from  crime,  and  since  where  it  has  been  abolished 
murder  has  increased,  capital  punishment  should  not  be  abol- 
ished. 


XVII 

SPECIMEN  GOOD  BRIEF 

Brief  I 

RESOLVED  :  That  in  their  Recent  Clash  with  the  Students  of 
the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  the  Police  Ex- 
ceeded their  Legal  Rights 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  The  question  arises  from  the  following  facts  : 

A.  On  the  evening  of  November  2  Harvard  and  Tech- 
nology Republicans,  held  a  joint  parade. 

B.  Fearing  a  collision  upon  the  steps  of  Kogers  Hall, 
similar  to  the  one  which  had  occurred  four  years 
before,  between  the  Harvard  and  Technology  men, 
President  Pritchett  had  directed  Bursar  Rand  to  see 
Captain  Hall  of  the  police  and  arrange  for  proper 
police   protection  "to  keep   the   step   clear."    The 
bursar  had  so  arranged. 

C.  After  the  Harvard  paraders  had  passed  out  Beacon 
Street  on  their  way  home,  the  Technology  paraders 
marched  to  Rogers  Hall  to  give  their  customary  cheers 
before  disbanding. 


484  APPENDIX 

• 

D.  Pursuant  to  their  orders,  the  police  attempted  to  pre- 
vent the  students  from  mounting  the  steps,  and  as  a 
result  a  fight  between  students  and  police  followed, 
in  which  many  people  were  hurt. 

JE.  The  police  have  been  charged  with  being  at  fault  and 

having  exceeded  their  legal  rights. 
II.  The  details  of  these  charges  are  as  follows : 

A.  The  police  had  no  right  to  keep  the  students  off  the  steps. 

B.  They  had  no  right  to  use  violence,  in  that 

1.  The  law  makes  self-defense  or  overcoming  of  resist- 
ance the  only  occasion  for  police  use  of  violence. 

2.  They  and  not  the  students  were  the  original  attack- 
ing party. 

C.  Granting  that,  after  the  attack  was  begun,  the  students 
threw  sticks  and  torches  at  the  police,  yet 

C'.  The  police  met  the  resistance  by  more  violence  than 
was  justified,  in  that 

1.  The  law  justifies  the  use  of  violence  by  the  police 
only  to  the  extent  necessary  to  overcome  resistance 
and  defend  themselves. 

2.  The  need  of  violence  was  small. 

3.  The  police  were  guilty  of  extreme  violence. 

D.  The  mounted  police  had  no  right  to  be  on  Boylston 
Street  and  so  to  enter  the  fight. 

E.  The  police  had  no  right  to  charge  the  crowds  in  the 
street,  in  that 

1.  They  were  not  in  riot. 

III.  The  opposition  maintains  that  the  police  were  acting 
within  their  legal  rights,  in  that 

A.  They  had  a  right  to  keep  the  students  off  the  steps 
of  Rogers  Hall,  in  that 

1.  They  had  an  unrevoked  order  to  do  so,  given  upon 
the  request  of  the  Technology  authorities. 

B.  The  police  had  a  right  to  use  violence,  in  that 

1.  They  were  attacked  by  the  students  while  peace- 
fully carrying  out  instructions. 


APPENDIX  485 

2.  The  law  provides  that  in  defending  themselves 
from  attack  the  police  may  use  violence  necessary 
to  overcome  resistance  and  defend  themselves. 

C.  The  police  later  had  a  right  to  clear  the  streets,  in 
that 

1.  The  crowd  was  dangerous. 

2.  The  crowd  blocked  the  passage. 

D.  The  mounted  police  were  acting  within  their  legal 
rights  in  being  on  Boylston  Street  and  taking  a  part 
in  the  clash,  in  that 

1.  They  were  ordered  to  report  to  Captain  Hall  after 
conducting  the  Harvard  men  to  the  bridge. 

2.  The  law  requires  the  police  to  aid  their  fellows 
when  in  difficulty. 

E.  The  police  did  not  use  unnecessary  violence  in  resist- 
ing the  student  attack,  in  that 

1.  They  were  met  with  great  resistance,  which  under 
the  law  justified  the  violence  necessary  to  over- 
come it. 

2.  Though  the   police   used  their  clubs  in  striking 
students,  yet 

2'.  The  violence  they  used  was  not  nearly  so  great  as 
it  seems,  in  that 

a.  The  stories  are  exaggerated. 

b.  There  were  other  causes  in  operation  to  produce 
the  harm  to  the  students. 

c.  The  mounted  police  did  not  charge  at  speed 
into  the  crowd. 

d.  Few  outsiders  were  hurt,  and  those  because  they 
were  in  the  midst  of  the  throng  which  was 
resisting  the  police. 

IV.  The  following  terms  need  definition : 

A.  The  legal  rights  of  the  police  in  so  far  as  they  bear 
on  this  question  are  as  follows  : l 

1  Laws  and  Regulations  Governing  the  Administration  of  the  Police 
Department  of  the  City  of  Boston. 


486  APPENDIX 

1.  Every  patrolman  shall  at  all  times  answer  the  calls 
and  obey  the  orders  of  his  superior  officers. 

2.  The  police  shall  suppress  riots  and  mobs  and  disperse 
dangerous  assemblies  and  assemblies  which  obstruct 
the  free  passage  of  public  streets,  walks,  parks,  etc. 

3.  In  times  of  peril  the  police  must  act  together  and 
protect  each  other  in  the  restoration  of  peace. 

4.  Violence  is  allowable  only  when  the  police  meet 
with  forcible  resistance  in  carrying  out  their  duty 
and  when  they  are  attacked. 

5.  No  more  force  shall  be  used  than  is  necessary  for 
overcoming  resistance. 

B.  Self-defense  includes  striking  back  with  all  necessary 

violence. 
V.  The  following  points  will  be  excluded  : 

A.  It  is  admitted  that  the  police  had  the  right  to.  keep 
the  steps  clear.    (President  Pritchett.) 

B.  It  is  admitted  that  the  police  had  the  right  to  clear 
the  streets. 

C.  It  is  admitted  that  the  police  used  clubs  and  the  stu- 
dents used  sticks  and  torches. 

D.  It  is  admitted  that  controlled  and  peaceful  keeping 
clear  of  steps  does  not  constitute  attack. 

E.  It  is  granted  that  the  mounted  police  had  a  right)  to 
be  on  Boylston  Street  and  to  use  violence  if  attacked. 

VI.  The  question  then  reduces  to  these  special  issues :  "^ 

A.  Did  the  students  or  police  open  the  attack? 

B.  Did  the  police  use  more  violence  than  was  necessary 
to  overcome  the  opposition? 

BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  The  students  of  Technology  and  not  the  police  opened 
the  attack,  for 
A.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  police  attacked,  for 

1.  They  know  they  can  legally  use  violence  only  when 
attacked,  for 


APPENDIX  487 

a.  It  is  explicitly  stated  in  the  rules,  a  copy  of 
which  they  all  have. 

b.  They  are  required  to  know  the  rules. 

2.  They  had  no  reason  for  attacking,  for 

a.  They  were  on  good  terms  with  the  Students,  for 
(i)  Captain  Hall  said,  "  Before  this  clash  I  had 

always  been  on  good  terms  with  the  Tech- 
nology men."1 

(ii)  All  the  police  testified  before  the  Commis- 
sion that  they  regarded  the  jibes  of  the 
students,  such  as  "All  policemen  have  big 
feet,"  as  jokes  and  were  not  angered  by 
them. 

b.  They  could  use  all  the  force  necessary  to  keep 
the  students  off  the  steps  without  its  constitut- 
ing an  attack,  for 

(i)  The  law  forces  them  to  carry  out  orders. 

3.  The  police  are  naturally  slow  to  attack,  for 

a.  They  know  that  punishment  awaits  them  if  they 

attack  without  reason. 
B.  It  is  natural  that  the  students  should  have  attacked,  for 

1.  They  would  be  angered  at  being  kept  off  the  steps, 
for 

a.  They  thought   they  had   special  right  to  the 
steps,  for 

(i)  As  the  yard  is    to   Harvard  men,   Rogers 
Hall  is  to  Technology  students. 

b.  They  had  always  gone  there  to  cheer  before. 

c.  They  had  not  been  told  that  they  were  to  be 
kept  off,  for 

(i)  President  Pritchett  said,  "No  notice  was 
given  them." 

2.  Conditions  favored  a  student  attack,  for 
a.  They  were  in  a  mood  for  a  fight,  for 

1  Boston  Herald,  November  3,  p.  2. 


488  APPENDIX 

(i)  They  had  expected  one  with  Harvard  men. 
b.  They  had  sticks  in  their  hand,  especially  suited 

for  fighting  purposes. 

3.  Students  have  an  inborn  desire  to  resist  officers 
of  the  law. 

C.  The  students  resisted  the  officers  first  in  going  up  the 
steps,  for 

1.  They  knocked  over  or  pushed  by  the  line  of  officers 
stationed  at  the  foot  of  the  steps,  for 

a.  There  was  such  a  line  of  officers.1 

b.  They  could  not  have  otherwise  got  up  the  steps. 

c.  Police  all  testify  to  have  been  knocked  over  or 
driven  back.2 

d.  George  Washington  (himself  hurt  by  a  police- 
man) said,  "The  Technology  students  started 
the  trouble  by  rushing  the  police  on  the  steps 
and    without  warning    assaulting    them   with 
torches." 8 

e.  A  Harvard  Junior  told  me  the  same  thing. 

/.  George  Costello,  D.  Daly,  and  others  so  testified. 
g.  The  testimony  of  those  back  of  the  first  few 
lines  on  this  point  is  worthless,  for 
(i)  They  knew  nothing  about  the  rush  in  re- 
sistance to  the  police  until  the  police  were 
driving  their  comrades  back  upon  them. 

D.  Several  students  admit  more  flagrant  attacks  upon 
the  police  at  the  top  of  the  steps  before  the  police 
charged  them  off,  for 

1.  Edward  B.  Kowe,  Technology  '06,  said,  « I  was  one 
of  three  to  seize  an  officer  violently  at  the  top  of 
the  steps.  This  was  before  the  real  clash." 

E.  The  students  attacked  the  mounted  police  when  they 
appeared,  for 

1  Police  Commission  Report.    Herald,  December  5,  p.  5. 

2  Herald,  November  23  and  December  fi. 
8  Idem,  November  5,  p.  2. 


AP^NDIX  489 

1.  Sergeant  Guard  said,  "The  hot  reception  we  re- 
ceived from  flying  torches  and  sticks  was  a  sur- 
prise and  entirely  unexpected."1 

2.  Officer  Balch  said,  "  The  torches  came  like  hail  as 
soon  as  we  appeared.'72 

3.  The  Herald  of  December  6  said,  "All  witnesses 
are  agreed  that  as  far  as  the  mounted  officers  were 
concerned  the  attack  was  begun  by  the  students 
and  was  unprovoked." 

II.   The  police  did  not  use  violence  unnecessary  to  overcome 
the  resistance,  for 
A.  Granting  for  the  moment  that  the  police  were  very 

violent  in  their  treatment  of  the  students,  yet 
A1.  They  were  legally  justified  in  it,  for 

1.  By  definition,  the  legal  rights  of  the  police  include 
self-defense   and  violence    in  case  of  resistance ; 
and  self-defense  before  the  law  constitutes  striking 
back,  even  killing  a  man  if  necessary. 

2.  Decided  violence  was  demanded,  for 

a.  The  crowd  could  not  have  been  handled  without 
it,  for 
(i)  The  crowd  was  practically  in  riot,  for 

(x)  A  large  body  was  violently  resisting  and 

attacking  the  police. 

(ii)  Eiots  cannot  be  suppressed  by  peaceful 
means,  for 

(x)  It  is  impossible  to  arrest  all  the  offenders, 
(y)  The  law  allows  soldiers  to  shoot  into  a 

crowd  in  riot. 

(Hi)  Military  and  police  authorities  say  the 
crowd  could  not  have  been  handled  without 
violence,  for 

(x)  Captain  Hall  said,  "Force  was  neces- 
sary." 

1  Testimony  before  Commission.    Herald,  December  6,  p.  5. 

2  Testimony  before  Commission.    Herald,  December  6,  p.  5. 


490  APPENDIX 

(y)  Colonel  Charles  Kenney  said,  "Violence 

had  to  be  used  to  control  the  crowd."1 
(iv)  A  student  said,  "  If  it  had  n't  been  for  the 

mounted  police  we  should  have  had  you." 2 
b.  The  police  were  vigorously  attacked,  for 

(i)  The    students    threw    torches,    sticks,    and 

rocks,  for 

(x)  J.  A.  Wallis,  '08,  H.  W.  Mahr,  '06,  M.  S. 
Clark,  '08,  and  A.  P.  Mathesius,  '06, 
among  many  others  admit  having  thrown 
them.8 

(y)  "The    torches    came    like   hail,"4  said 

Patrolman  W.  Balch. 
(ii)  They   wheeled    the    burning    transparency 

upon  the  police,  for 

(x)  Captain  Hall  said,  "It  struck  me  on 
the  leg." 

0)  H.  W.  Mahr,   Technology  '06,  said,  « I 

saw  the  float  on  fire,  but  did  not  see  who 

set  it.    It  was  pushed  toward  the  steps 

and  police."3 

(Hi)  They  threw  the    officers    and   seized  theii 

helmets,  badges,  and  clubs,  for 

(x)  R.  C.  Caryl,  '08,  said,  « I  know  of  fel- 
lows who  have  police  helmets,  one  who 
has  a '  billy,'  and  one  who  has  a  badge."5 
Others  say  the  same  thing. 

(y)  The  testimony  of  all  the  officers  before 
the  Commission  shows  it,  especially 
Sergeant  E.  Fitzgerald's.6 

*  Investigation  before  the  Commission.    Journal,  December  6,  p.  5. 

2  Investigation  before  the  Commission.    Herald,  December  2. 

3  Testimony  before  Commission.    Herald,  November  18,  p.  2. 

4  Testimony  before  Commission.     Herald,  December  6,  p.  5. 
6  Testimony  before  Commission.     Transcript,  December  15. 
6  Herald,  December  6,  p.  7. 


APPENDIX  491 

(iv)  They  jabbed  the   horses   of  the   mounted 

police  until  they  threw  them,  for 

(x)  Besides  the  police,  F.  H.  Stearns,  George 

Costello,  D.  Daly,  and  others  concur  in 

testimony  of  the  first,  "I  saw  officers 

attacked  and  knocked  from  their  horses."1 

(y)  A   Technology   Freshman    told    me   of 

throwing  rocks  and  sticks  at  horses  and 

men  and  getting  men  thrown. 

(v)  A  Junior  and  a  Freshman  both  said  to  me : 

"  I  was  so  mad  that  I  could  have  killed  an 

officer  and  felt  perfectly  justified.    It  was 

a  good  thing  that  the  fight  was  n't  farther 

up  the  street  where  the  pavement  had  been 

torn  up  and  there  were  lots  of  loose  paving 

stones.    If  it  had  been,  some  men  would 

now  be  dead." 

(vi)    Sixty-two  officers  were  hurt,  one  of  whom 

was  off  duty  for  three  weeks.2 
B.  But  though  the  police  used  their  clubs  in  striking 

students,  yet 
B'.  They  were  not  nearly  so  violent  as  it  seems,  for 

1.  Other  causes  were  operating  to  produce  the  harm 
to  the  students,  for 

a.  Bocks  and  torches  were  flying  about  promis- 
cuously in  the  air. 

b.  Many  students  were  not  sure  that  they  were 
hit  by  police  clubs  and  not  by  something  else.8 

c.  Many  fell  and  were  hurt  by  their  fellows,  for 
(i)  Walter  Smith  of  the  Elevated  office  said, 

"I  saw  people  trampled  under  foot  in  the 
rush  of  students."4 

1  Testimony  before  the  Commission.    Herald,  December  3,  p.  1. 

2  Report  of  Commissioner  Emmons  in  Herald,  November  30,  p.  5. 
8  Trial  before  Commission.    Herald,  December  16. 

4  Testimony  before  Commission.    Herald,  December  6,  p.  5. 


492  APPENDIX 

(ii)  —  Bansom,  Harvard  '07,  said,  "  I  saw  fel- 
lows trampled  upon  in  the  crowd." 

d.  The  horses  of  the   police,  frightened   by  the 
students,  kicked  out  in  all  directions. 

e.  The  police  might  innocently  have  struck  men 
in  defending  themselves  from  the  sticks,  for 
(i)  Officer  Felton  said,  "When  the  sticks  broke, 

my  club  must  fall  somewhere  and  in  some 
cases  fell  on  students."1 

2.  The  mounted  police  did  not  charge  at  speed  into 
the  crowd,  for 

a.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine  their  doing  so,  for 
(i)  They  could  not  go  through  the  crowd. 

(ii)  If  they  had  they  could   not  have  helped 
hurting  more  than  they  did. 

b.  Colonel  Charles  Kenney  said,  "  I  should  not  say 
that  the  horses  were  ridden  in  a  way  to  injure 
people,  except  as  a  horse  might  step  on  a  per- 
son's  foot  by  accident."2 

c.  His  testimony  was  supported  by  others,  F.  H. 
Stearns,  D.  Daly,  Colonel  Darling,  etc. 

3.  Though  eight  persons,  not  Technology  students, 
were  hurt,  yet 

3'.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  police  used  their  clubs 
indiscriminately  upon  innocent  citizens,  for 

a.  Of  these  eight,  two  were  students  of  other  col- 
leges who  had  joined  in  the  parade  and  in  the 
fight  with  the  police. 

b.  All  the  others  were  in  the  midst  of  the  students 
who  were  resisting  the  officers. 

c.  Four  of  the  six,  not  students,  did  not  know 
whether  police  hit  them  or  something  else  hit 
them. 


1  Testimony  reported  in  Herald,  December  1,  p.  7. 

2  Testimony  reported  in  Herald,  December  6,  p.  5. 


APPENDIX  493 

d.  Contrary  to  first  report,  there  were  no  women 
found  who  had  been  hurt  during  the  clash. 

4.  Contrary  to  the  first  exaggerated  reports,  physicians 
and  Technology  counsel  admit  "that  the  actual 
physical    consequences   to   the   students   are   not 
serious." 

5.  Unprejudiced  and  judicious  witnesses  deny  that 
the  police  used  excessive  force.    These  include, 
for  instance,  Boston  Street  E.  E.  inspectors,  G-.  W. 
Judkins,  F.  H.  Stearns,  D.  Daly,  and  militiamen 
and  soldiers,  Colonel  Kenney,  and  Colonel  Darling. 

CONCLUSION 

I.  The  police  did  not  exceed  their  legal  rights,  since 

A.  The  police  had  a  right  to  clear  the  steps  and  street. 

B.  They  were  attacked  when  merely  carrying  out  their 
duty  in  a  legal  way. 

C.  They  used  no  more  violence  than  was  necessary  to 
defend  themselves  and  overcome  resistance. 


XVIII 

SPECIMEN  GOOD  B&IEF 

Brief  J 

Should  Onset  be  Set  Off  from  Wareham  as  a  New  Town? 
INTRODUCTION 

I.  The  question  originated  as  follows  : 

A.  A  section  of  Wareham  known  as  Onset  became  dis- 
satisfied with  being  under  the  government  of  Ware- 
ham  and  expressed  a  desire  to  have  Oneet  set  off  as 
a  new  town. 

B.  By  "  setting  off  as  a  new  town  "  we  mean  the  grant- 
ing of  a  charter  by  the  Legislature,  giving  to  the 


494  APPENDIX 

inhabitants  of  a  certain  territory  the  right  to  conduct, 
independently,  their  own  municipal  affairs  according 
to  law. 

C.  The  people  began  to  hold  mass  meetings  in  1898,  sent 
petitions  to  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  in 
1901,  and  in  1902  they  presented  a  bill  to  the  Legis- 
lature. 

D.  Upon  the  failure  of  this  one  they  drew  up  another 
and  presented  it  this  spring,  1904. 

E.  This  one  failed  and  now  they  are  at  work  preparing 
another  bill  for  separation. 

II.  The  people  of  Onset  and  the  people  of  Wareham  on  the 
question  of  separation  disagree  on  the  following  points : 
A.  Tne  people  of  Onset  allege  the  following  evils : 

1.  Onset  and  Wareham  are,  in  their  relations  one  to 
another,  incompatible,  'since 

a.  The  people  of  Wareham  are  conservative  in  their 
ideas. 

b.  The  people  of  Onset  are  progressive  in  their 
ideas. 

c.  Their  business  methods  vary. 

2.  Onset  cannot  get  the  improvements  that  she  needs, 
since 

a.  They  are  voted  down  in  the  Town  Meetings, 
since  the  voting  power  of  Wareham  is  so  much 
greater  than  that  of  Onset. 

3.  Law  and  order  and  health  measures  are  not  enforced 
in  Onset  by  Wareham. 

4.  The  high  valuation  of  property  in  Onset,  compared 
with  the  valuation  in  Wareham,  is  unfair. 

B.  Before  the  Committees  on  Towns,  of  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature,  the  Wareham  representatives  answered 
as  follows : 

1.  That  Onset  received  her  share  of  the  expenditures. 

2.  That  the  allegations  of  Onset  as  set  forth  in  A 
were  not  true. 


APPENDIX  495 

III.  The  following  terms  need  definition  : 

A.  Wareham.  —  Wareham   is  a  town  in  Massachusetts, 
at  the  head  of  Buzzards  Bay,  settled  in  1719. 

1.  In  one  direction   it  stretches  about  nine  miles ; 
in  another,  in  the  vicinity  of  seven  miles. 

2.  The  whole  tract  covers  about  18,000  acres  of  tax- 
able land. 

3.  In  1903,  the  whole  was  valued  at  $2,982,230.00, 
and  the  actual  amount  raised  by  taxation'  in  the 
same  year  was  $42,944.11. 

4.  According  to  the  last  census,  there  were  in  Ware- 
ham  3432   permanent   inhabitants,   and   of  them 
797  were  voters. 

5.  The  various  sections  of  the  Town  of  Wareham  are 
known   as    Tremont,    South  Wareham,  Wareham 
Narrows  (or  simply  Wareham),  Great  Neck,  Point 
Independence,  and  Onset. 

B.  Onset.  —  What  is  hereafter  called  Onset  consists  of 
the  easterly  section   of  Wareham,  including  a  part 
of  East  Wareham,  Onset  (Fire  District),  and  Point 
Independence,  but  excludes  Great  Neck. 

1.  The    area    of   the  whole    section    is    about   5000 
acres,  or  nearly  one  third  of  the  whole  area  of 
Wareham. 

2.  In  1903  the  valuation  was  over  a  third  of  that  of 
all  Wareham,  or  $1,000,000.    The  amount  raised 
by  taxation  was  $12,550;  a  little  over  one  fourth 
of  that  of  all  Wareham. 

3.  The  voting  force  is  about  one  fourth  of  that  of 
Wareham,  and  about  one  third  (286  to  797)  of  the 
voting  force  of  Wareham  with  Onset  excluded. 

4.  1700  people  reside  permanently  in  Onset,  which 
is  one  half  the  total  population  of  Wareham. 

5.  In  the  summer  months  about  3000  people  spend 
their  vacations  in  Onset,  while  on  certain  days  the 
summer  people  number  from  5000  to  8000. 


496  APPENDIX 

IV.  Discussion  of  the  following  points  is  to  be  omitted : 

A.  Both  sides  grant  the  following  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment: 

1.  The  men  of  Onset,  as  far  as  ability  and  judgment 
are  concerned,  are  just  as  capable  of  running  a 
town  government  as  the  men  of  Wareham. 

2.  The  town  has  the  material  qualities  for  forming  a 
new  town,  in  that 

a.  It  has  more  than  1000  inhabitants,  while  out  of 
the  320  towns  in  Massachusetts  125  have  fewer 
than  1000. 

b.  It  has  286  voters,  while  120  towns  in  Massa- 
chusetts have  less  than  286  voters. 

c.  It  has  a  valuation   of  $1,000,000,  while  153 
towns   in   Massachusetts   have   a  valuation  of 
less  than  $1,000,000. 

d.  None  of  the  towns,  equal  in  the  above  respects, 
have,  up  to  this  time,  presented  any  bill  to  the 
Legislature   for  combining  one   or  several   of 
them  with  another. 

B.  Both   sides   admit  that  Wareham,  in  the  event  of 
separation,  will  lose  a  certain  amount  of  territory 
and  taxes. 

V.  The   question  reduces   itself  to  the   following  special 
issues : 

A.  Does  the  present  government  of  Onset  by  Wareham 
fulfill  efficiently  the  needs  of  Onset  in  respect  to 
improvements,  law  and  order,  and  taxation? 

B.  Would  the  proposed  government  of  Onset,  in  case  she 
should  become  a  town,  fulfill  more  efficiently  than 
the  present  government  by  Wareham  her  needs  in 
these  same  respects? 

C.  Would  the  loss  to  Wareham  be  outweighed  by  the 
benefits  to  Onset  ? 


APPENDIX  497 


BRIEF  PROPER 

I.  The  present  government  of  Onset  by  Wareham  is  ineffi- 
cient, for 

A.  Onset   and   Wareham  are,  in  their  relation  to  one 
another,  incompatible,  for 
1.  In  their  ideas  they  are  opposite,  for 

a.  The  conditions  of  life  of  the  people  of  Wareham 
make  them  naturally  unwilling  to  accept  new 
ideas  or,  in  other  words,  make  them  extremely 
conservative,  for 

(i)  They  have  always  been  used  to  one  condi- 
tion of  affairs,  for 

(x)  Many  of  them  have  inherited  their  prop- 
erty and  have  lived  there  all  their  lives. 

b.  The  acts  of  the  people  of  Wareham  exhibit  this 
conservatism,  for 

(i)  In  spite  of  heavy  losses  by  fire,  Wareham 
refused  the  request  of  Onset  to  supply  the 
town  with  water. 

c.  The  conditions  of  life  of  the  people  of  Onset 
make  them  naturally  willing  to  accept  new  ideas 

or,  in  other  words,  make  them  progressive,  for 

(i)  They  mix  with  many  people  who  have  varied 

and  progressive  ideas,  for 

(x)  The  large  number  of  people  who  come 

there  for  their  summer  vacation  from 

all  over  the  country  bring  in  new  ideas. 

d.  The  acts  of  the  people  of  Onset  exhibit  this 
progressiveness,  for 

(i)  They  formed  a  private  corporation  which 

supplies  Onset  with  water. 
(ii)  The  business  men  formed  a  volunteer  fire 
department  and  had  hydrants  placed  along 
their  streets,  with  the  result  that  Onset  has 
never  since  had  a  serious  fire. 


498  APPENDIX 

(Hi)  They  built  a  wharf  where  excursion  steamers! 

could  land. 
2.  In  business  conditions  they  are  opposite,  for 

a.  In  Wareham  business  as  a  whole  has  declined, 
for 

(f)  At  the  time  when  Onset  began  to  develop] 
there  existed  in  Wareham  the  following] 
large  industrial  establishments : 

The  Tremont  Nail  Works,  Parker  Mills 
Works,  Franconia  Iron  and  Steel  Works, 
two  merchant  iron  mills,  four  nail  facto- 
ries, and  three  sawmills. 

(ii)  To-day  there  only  remain  the  Tremont  Nail 
Works,  the  Parker  Mills  Works,  and  one] 
sawmill. 

(iii)  The  other  industries,  mercantile  especially,] 

have  made  no  progress,  for 

(a?)  The  stores  on  Main  Street,  which  are  all] 

there  are  in  town,  are  practically  the] 

same  as  they  were  years  ago. 

(?/)  There  have  been  no  noticeable  additions 

recently. 

b.  Business  in  Onset,  which  is  largely  mercantile, 

—  since  Onset  has  no  water  power  as  WarehanJ 
has,  —  is  flourishing  and  progressive,  for 
(i)  Several  stores  have  installed  acetylene  gas] 
for   illuminating   purposes  in  place  of  oi| 
lamps. 

(ii)  Among  evidences  of  prosperity  and  pro-j 
gressiveness  is  the  addition  of  the  follow-, 
ing  stores,  —  two  new  "  Oriental  Bazaars/' 
a  branch  of  the  Boston  "Delicatessen,"  a 
"Five  and  Ten  Cent  Store,"  and  two  newj 
grocery  stores. 

B.  The  voting  power  of  Wareham  is  so  much  greater  thj 
that  of  Onset  that  Onset  is  at  a  great  disadvantage,  foi 


APPENDIX  499 

1.  The  voters  of  Wareham  vote  down  measures  favor- 
able to  Onset. 

a.  For  example,   several   business  men  of  Onset 
were  refused  a  charter  for  forming  a  gas  com- 
pany to  supply  Onset  with  lights. 

b.  Many   taxpayers    on   Longwood   Avenue   have 
petitioned  for '  seven  years  without  success  to 
have  the  street  made  fairly  passable  for  car- 
riages,   and    Park    Street    and    East    Central 
Avenue  are  equally  badly  off. 

C.  Although  Wareham  says  that  Onset  gets  her  share 
of  the  taxes  in  the  money  she  receives  for  her  schools, 
poor,  and  the  like  ; 

C'.  Yet,  considering  that  the  laws  of  Massachusetts  re- 
quire the  maintenance  of  schools  and  the  poor,  Onset 
does  not  receive  her  fair  share,  for 

1.  The  maintenance  of  these  does  not  consume  one 
fourth  of  the  taxes  of  Wareham,  which  is  the  con- 
tribution of  Onset.1 

2.  Onset    does    not    receive    further   improvements, 
because 

a.  It  has  been  shown  that  Wareham   has  voted 
them  down. 

D.  Law  and  order  and  health  measures  are  not  properly 
enforced,  for 

1.  For  instance,  the  officers  at  Onset,  appointed  not 
by  men  who  have  the  interests  of  Onset  at  heart, 
but  by  men  who  are  opposed  to  Onset,  allow  men 
who  come  down  there  for  the  purpose  of  selling 
liquor  illegally,  to   sell  all  through  the  summer 
season,  and  at  the  end  they  make  raids  and  impose 
fines  very  small  in  proportion  to  the  profits  made. 

2.  In  regard  to  the  health  rules,  in  many  instances 
the    storekeepers    and    summer    residents    throw 
garbage  into  the  corners  of  the  back  yards. 

1  Town  Reports. 


500  APPENDIX 

E.  Property  in  Onset  is  unfairly  valued  at  a  higher  rate 

than  that  of  Wareham,  for 

1.  Even  though  the  chairman  of  the  assessors  said 
in  the  hearing  before  the  Legislative  Committee 
on  Towns  that  he  considered  it  his  duty  as  an 
assessor  to  raise  the  valuation  in  Onset; 

1'.  Yet  it  was  merely  a  matter  of  discrimination  oJ 
the  part  of  the  assessors,  for 

a.  They  knew  that  the  people  of  Onset,  having  too 
few  voters  to  outvote  those  of  Wareham,  had 
no  redress. 

b.  A  comparison  of  true  values  with  the  assessors' 
valuations  in  Onset  and  on  Main  Street  in  Ware^ 
ham  gives  evidence  of  discrimination,  for 

(*')  A  quarter-acre  lot  with  store  and  barn  onj 
Main  Street  in  Wareham,  renting  for  $480| 
and  probably  valued  above  $4000,  is  assessed! 
at  only  $1100. 

(ii)  A  lot  of  one  tenth  acre  with  store  and  coiJ 
tage  in  Onset,  assessed  in  1901  at  $2000,  is1 
now  assessed  at  $4150. 

(Hi)  A  department  store  and  cottage  on  Main 
Street,  Wareham,  covering  an  acre  of  land> 
is  assessed  at  only  $5000. 

(iv)  The  owner  of  a  cottage  in  Onset,  valued  in] 
1901  at  $200,  improved  by  the  addition  of 
a  stable  at  an  actual  cost  of  $400,  is  now 
assessed  at  $400  for  the  cottage  and  $500 
for  the  stable. 

(v)  A  lot  in  Onset  offered  for  $400,  — which! 

was  generally  considered  a  fair  price, and 

sold  for  $350,  is  assessed  at  $500. 

c.  In  the  opinion  of  competent  investigators  the  | 
market  value  of  property  on   Main  Street  in! 
Wareham   is   about   three   times   the  assessed 
valuation,    while    the    property    in    Onset    is 


APPENDIX  501 

assessed  nearly  to  the  full  market  value  and 
sometimes  over. 
II.  The  proposed  government  of  Onset  would  be  efficient,  for 

A.  The  inhabitants  in  Onset  itself  would  be  compatible, 
for 

1.  They  would  have  the  same  progressive  ideas,  for 
a.  They  all  alike  mingle  with  people  who  possess 

and  demand  progressive  ideas. 

2.  They  are  confined  to  a  comparatively  small  and 
uniformly  thickly  settled  portion  where  they  have 
free  access  to  each  other. 

B.  They  would  be  able  to  repair  their  streets  and  make 
the  improvements  necessary  to  a  progressive  people, 
because 

1.  They  would  control  their  own  taxes. 

2.  They  would  be  harmonious  in  policy. 

C.  They  would  have  the  laws  enforced,  because 

1.  Their  officers  would  be  directly  amenable  to  them, 
for 
a.  The  men  who  appoint  the  officers  would  have 

the  interests  of  Onset  at  heart. 
b'  The  men  appointed  would  naturally  have  a  civic 

pride. 

D.  They  would  not  be  at  the  mercy  of  discriminating 
assessors,  for 

1.  They  would  themselves  elect  the  assessors. 
III.  The  loss  which  Wareham  would  sustain  would  be  far 
outweighed  by  the  benefits  to  Onset,  for 
A.  Wareham  can  afford  to  lose  the  proposed  district  of 
Onset,  for 

1.  She  has  too  large  a  territory  to  govern  economic- 
ally, for 

a.  She  has  to  support  roads,  etc.,  over  a  thinly  set- 
tled territory  of  sixty-three  square  miles. 
(i)  Wareham  is  only  settled,  to  any  extent,  in 
the  villages  of  South  Wareham,  Tremont, 


502  APPENDIX 

Parker  Mills,  Great  Neck,  Onset,  and  Poii 
Independence,  which  stretch  out  miles  apai 
at  intervals  covering  a  distance  of  nine 

B.  Onset  will  be  greatly  benefited,  for 

1.  She  can  conduct  her  affairs  economically  over  h< 
section,  for 

a.  All  the  thickly  settled  territory,  namely,  Onj 
Fire  District  and  Point  Independence,  whic 
contain  nearly  all  the  population  and  taxal 
property  of  the  proposed  district,  are  very  ne 
together. 

(i)  They  are  connected  by  a  bridge  over 
River. 

2.  She    has    undeveloped    territory   where   at   soi 
future  time  she  can    dispose  of   her  sewage 
filtration. 

a.  The  territory  from  the   40th   parallel   to 
Plymouth  line  is  uncultivated. 

C.  The  loss  by  Wareham  of  $12,500  in  taxes  from  Oi 
is  not  an  injustice,  for 

1.  She  does  not  use  it  in  the  interests  of  Onset. 
a.  She  votes  down  measures  for  improvements 

streets,  etc. 
D.  Onset  will  gain  greatly,  for 

1.  She  can  use  her  own  taxes  for  improvements,  foi 
a.  She  will  have  full  control  over  her  funds. 

CONCLUSION 

I.  I  have  proved  that  the  present  government  of  Onset 

Wareham  is  inefficient ; 
II.  And  that  the  proposed  government  of  Onset  as  a  sepai 

town  would  be  more  efficient; 

III.  And  that  the  benefits  received  by  Onset  would  outwf 
the  loss  to  Wareham : 
Therefore  Onset  should  be  set  off  from  Wareham  as 
new  town. 


APPENDIX  503 

XIX 

SPECIMEN  BRIEF  DRAWN  FROM  A  SPEECH 

Brief  K 

Lord  Chatham's  Speech  on  the  Motion  to  Remove  the  Troops 
from  Boston* 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  The  present  action  of  the  Ministry  suggests  unfairness. 
'  II.  There  has  been  unfairness  by  the  Government,  namely, 
misrepresentation,  in  that 

A.  The  representations  that  led  to  the  measures  obnoxious 
to  the  Americans  were  false,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that 

1.  The  Ministry  said  that  the  measures  would  overawe 
the  Americans,  but  these  measures  have  united  the 
Americans  in  resistance  to  England. 

III.  Therefore,  the  troops   should   be  immediately  removed 
from  Boston. 

IV.  In  considering   this   proposed  action,   a   hearer  should 
remember  that  to  be  just  to  America  does  not  mean  to 
exempt  her  from  all  obedience  to  Great  Britain. 

BRIEF  PROPER 

This  removal  of  the  troops  is  necessary,  for 

A.  It  will  show  the  willingness  of  the  English  to  treat 
amicably. 

B.  The  resistance  of  the  Americans  was  just,  because 

1.  The  proceedings  of  Parliament  had  been  tyrannical 
C.  The  means  of  enforcing  the  obnoxious  measures  have 
failed,  for 

1  Political  Orations,  Camel ot  Series,  pp.  40-49 ;  Specimens  of  Argu- 
mentation, p.  7 ;  Goodrich's  Select  British  Eloquence. 


504  APPENDIX 

1.  The  army  of  General  Gage  is  "penned  up  —  pining 
in  inglorious  inactivity." 

2.  Though  it  is  said  that  the  army  in  America  is  a 
safeguard,  yet  this  is  untrue,  for 

a.  It  is  powerless  and  contemptible. 

b.  It  is  irritating  to  the  Americans. 

3.  Though  it  is  said  that  General  Gage  is  needlessly 
inactive,  yet  this  is  untrue,  for 

a.  Any  activity  on  his  part  would  mean  "  civil  and 
unnatural  war." 

D.  If  Parliament  tries  still  to  enforce  its  measures,  the 
results  will  be  bad,  for 

1.  If  Parliament  is  victorious,  it  will  be  over  an  em- 
bittered people. 

2.  The  troops  are  not  strong  enough  to  resist  three 
million  united,  courageous  people. 

3.  Persecution  of  those  men  whose  fathers  fled  to 
escape  it  should  cease,  since 

a.  The  objection  that  the  "Americans  must  not  be 
heard  "  is  wrong,  because 
(1)  It  lumps  the  innocent  with  the  guilty. 

E.  The  statement  that  the  Union  in  America  cannot  last 
is  not  true,  for 

1.  The  evidence  of  the  "  commercial  bodies  "  is  unre- 
liable, for 

a.  They  do  not  represent  the  class  they  personate. 

b.  They  are  government  agents. 

c.  Even  if  they  did  represent  the  class  they  per- 
sonate, their  evidence  would  not  be  weighty,  for 
(i)  Not   the   traders   but  the  farmers  are  the 

sinew  of  a  nation. 
(ii)  The  farmers  are  solidly  arrayed  for  liberty. 

2.  The  evidence  of  a  recognized  authority  (Dr.  Frank- 
lin  plainly    hinted)    shows   that   for   liberty   the 
Americans  would  suffer  far  more  than  they  have 
endured,  even  war  and  rapine. 


APPENDIX  505 

F.  The  statement  that  the  Americans  should  be  punished 
for  illegal  violence  is  untrue,  for 

1.  A  chance  for  reconciliation  should  not  be  missed. 

2.  Thirty  thousand  should  not  be  punished  for  the 
fault  of  forty  or  fifty. 

3.  Punishment    means    arousing    the    unappeasable 
wrath  of  the  whole  American  people. 

4.  Even  if  the  English  should  be  victorious,  they  could 
not  control  the  great  tract  as  they  conquered  it. 

5.  The  resistance  should  have  been  foreseen,  for 

a.  The  spirit  that  resists  in  America  is  that  of  all 
English  stock,  that  which  established  the  essen- 
tial maxim  of  English  liberty,  "No  taxation 
without  the  consent  of  the  taxed." 

6.  The  resistance  will  be  too  strong  to  be  overcome,  for 

a.  The  idea  of  the  Americans  is  that  of  the  English 
Whigs,  who,  in  consistency,  must  support  the 
Americans. 

b.  The  Irish  have  always  maintained  the  Ameri- 
can idea. 

c.  The  means  to  oppose  this  union  will  be  inade- 
quate, for 

(i)  A  few  regiments  in  America  and  about 
eighteen  thousand  men  at  home  must  oppose 
millions  in  England  and  all  Ireland  and 
America. 

G.  This  removal  of  the  troops  must  precede  any  other 
step,  for 

1.  Fear  and  resentment  must  first  of  all  be  removed 
in  the  Americans. 

2.  While  the  troops  remain,  resentment  will  remain,  for 

a.  Any  measures  secured  by  force  will  be  doubly 
irritating  with  the  army  still  in  its  place,  and 

b.  When,  as  is  now  the  fact,  force  cannot  be  used, 
the  mere  presence  of  the  army,  although  it  is 
itself  in  danger,  is  an  irritation. 


506  APPENDIX 

H.  The  views  of  Congress  are  moderate  and  reasonable. 
/.  The  superior  should  take  the  initiative  in  concessions. 
J.  While  every  motive  of  policy  urges  withdrawal  of  the 

troops,  very  great  dangers  threaten  if  they  are  kept  in 

position,  for 

1.  If  the  old  course  is  pursued,  foreign  war  hangs 
over  the  heads  of  the  English,  for 

a.  France  and  Spain  are  watching  for  an  advan- 
tageous chance  to  interfere. 

2.  The  old  methods  will  bring  ruin  at  home,  for 

a.  The  king  will  lose  all  his  power. 

b.  The  kingdom  will  be  utterly  undone. 


XX 

MATERIAL  FOE  BRIEFING1 

Is  the  Claimant  Don  Sebastian? 

In  the  last  years  of  the  sixteenth  century,  a  man  in  middle 
life,  poor,  with  no  attendants,  appeared  in  Venice,  asserting 
his  claim  to  the  throne  of  Portugal  as  Don  Sebastian,  its 
former  king.  Some  twenty  years  before,  young  Don  Sebas- 
tian, then  king  of  Portugal,  had  crossed  into  Africa  with  the 
flower  of  his  court  and  army  for  a  crusade  against  the  Infidels, 
the  Moors.  In  the  first  battle  his  army  was  routed  with  ter- 
rible loss,  and  in  the  confusion  he  disappeared.  His  body 
servant  after  the  battle  identified  a  certain  corpse  as  that  of 
Don  Sebastian.  This  body  was  buried  with  royal  ceremonies 
by  King  Philip  of  Spain.  There  were  rumors,  however,  that 
he  had  escaped  and  had  been  seen  in  hiding  at  a  monastery 
in  Portugal;  there  were  also  rumors  that  he  was  dead.  As 

1  First  determine  what  are  the  essential  ideas  to  be  proved  for  or 
against  the  claimant  and  then  support  these  by  subheads  drawn  from 
the  evidence  stated  in  the  following  account.  From  this  material  draw  a 
brief  either  in  support  of  or  against  the  claims  of  this  man. 


APPENDIX  507 

time  passed  all,  except  a  very  few  in  Portugal  who  still  hoped, 
believed  that  he  was  dead.  Philip  II  took  Portugal  under  his 
control,  and  it  was  in  order  to  win  supporters  against  the 
Spanish  king  that  the  claimant  appeared  at  Venice. 

Friends  of  Philip  derided  his  claims  and  maintained  that 
there  was  no  good  reason  for  Don  Sebastian's  disappearance 
after  the  battle,  if  he  had  not  been  killed.  They  said  it  was 
hardly  natural  for  a  man  to  give  up  a  kingdom  so  easily. 
Moreover  the  claimant's  physical  resemblances  to  the  lost 
prince  were,  in  their  opinion,  not  conclusive.  To  many,  how- 
ever, the  claimant's  story  of  his  disappearance  and  long 
absence  seemed  plausible,  and  his  resemblance  to  Don  Sebas- 
tian and  his  knowledge  of  the  prince's  early  life  seemed  con- 
vincing. In  short,  the  validity  of  the  claim  to  the  throne 
seemed  to  depend  upon  the  satisfactoriness  of  the  claimant's 
account  of  Don  Sebastian's  disappearance  and  of  his  long 
absence,  and  the  conclusiveness  of  his  resemblance  in  mind 
and  body  to  the  lost  prince. 

The  claimant  said  that  he  fled  in  the  rout  and  wandered 
about  with  his  followers;  that  because  of  the  overwhelming 
nature  of  his  defeat  in  this  first  battle  of  what  he  had  believed 
to  be  a  holy  war,  he  felt  a  judgment  of  God  in  his  defeat, 
and  was  too  overcome,  too  disgraced,  to  show  himself  to  the 
people.  Therefore,  he  went  to  the  Portuguese  monastery  in 
hiding,  thinking  later  to  reveal  himself.  His  sense  of  dis- 
grace increased,  however,  and  he  determined  to  do  penance 
by  fighting  with  his  small  band  of  followers  against  the  Pay- 
nim  in  the  East.  He  named  many  Eastern  countries  in  which 
he  had  traveled  and  fought.  After  much  successful  fighting, 
finding  that  his  feeling  that  his  defeat  had  been  a  judgment 
of  God  grew  upon  him,  he  determined  to  become  a  hermit, 
and  dismissed  all  of  his  followers.  To  a  fellow-hermit  he 
told  his  story,  and  this  man's  strong  appeals  aroused  him  to 
assert  his  rights.  He  gathered  some  servants  about  him,  and 
set  off  for  Venice  to  press  his  claims.  On  the  road  his  serv- 
ants robbed  him  of  everything  and  deserted  him. 


508  APPENDIX 

He  urged  his  claims  with  great  plausibility,  gaining  many 
supporters.  In  meeting  the  opposition  offered  him  by  the 
friends  of  Philip,  which  amounted  to  something  not  unlike 
persecution,  he  showed  much  dignity  and  manliness,  remain- 
ing throughout  examinations  and  torture  unswerving  in  his 
statement  that  he  was  the  king.  He  told  several  stories  of 
the  king's  youth  and  of  his  young  manhood  that  showed  an 
intimate  knowledge  of  Don  Sebastian's  life.  He  spoke  Por- 
tuguese with  an  accent,  gained,  he  said,  by  speaking  for  twenty 
years  the  languages  of  the  East.  Don  Sebastian  had  had 
marked  physical  characteristics,  a  limp,  some  wounds,  etc. 
The  limp  and  the  scars  the  claimant  showed.  Some  persons 
who  had  known  Don  Sebastian,  mainly,  however,  ignorant 
people  who  had  not  known  him  well,  recognized  the  claimant 
as  the  king  they  had  seen  twenty  years  before.  (For  further 
particulars,  see  biographical  dictionaries.) 


XXI 

MATERIAL  FOE  BRIEFING 

Swift's  Relationship  to  Stella 

The  intimate  friendship  of  Jonathan  Swift  with  Esther 
Johnson  and  Hester  Vanhomrigh  and  his  failure  to  discourage 
the  affection  of  the  latter  in  more  definitive  fashion  have  given 
rise  to  a  question  as  to  whether  Swift  and  Esther  Johnson 
were  united  in  a  purely  formal  marriage  in  1716  or  whether 
Swift  was  really  free  to  marry  Hester  Vanhomrigh  all  through 
the  years  in  which  he  allowed  her  affection  to  grow  without 
breaking  off  the  friendship.  If  this  marriage  did  take  place, 
then,  every  visit  he  paid,  every  letter  he  wrote,  to  Miss  Van- 
homrigh subsequent  to  1716  was  derogatory  to  him.  We  may 
go  further.  In  that  case,  we  are  justified  in  believing  the 
very  worst  of  him,  not  only  in  his  relations  with  Stella  and 
Vanessa,  but  in  his  relations  with  men  and  the  world.  In 


APPENDIX  509 

that  case,  there  is  no  ambiguous  action,  either  in  his  public 
or  in  his  private  career,  which  does  not  become  pregnant  with 
suspicion.  For,  in  that  case,  he  stands  convicted  of  having 
passed  half  his  life  in  systematically  practising,  and  in  com- 
pelling the  woman  he  loved  to  practise  systematically,  the 
two  vices  which  of  all  vices  he  professed  to  hold  in  the  deep- 
est abhorrence.  Those  who  know  anything  of  Swift  know 
with  what  loathing  he  always  shrank  from  anything  bearing 
the  remotest  resemblance  to  duplicity  and  falsehood.  As  a 
political  pamphleteer  he  might,  like  his  brother-penmen,  allow 
himself  licence,  but  in  the  ordinary  intercourse  of  life  it  was 
his  habit  to  exact  and  assume  absolute  sincerity. 

Swift  first  met  Esther  Johnson  in  1689  at  Moor  Park,  when 
she  was  about  eight  years  old  and  he  was  twenty-two.  He 
seems  to  have  spent  much  time  and  thought  upon  her  educa- 
tion, and  from  her  fifteenth  year  until  her  death  in  1728  at 
the  age  of  forty-seven,  except  during  the  years  that  Swift 
spent  in  London,  they  were  almost  constantly  thrown  together. 
Esther  Johnson  or  "  Stella,"  as  she  is  usually  called,  was 
often  at  the  deanery  and  frequently  received  Swift's  guests. 
Before  Swift's  death  in  1745  it  was  commonly  reported  that 
he  had  been  secretly  married  to  Stella  about  1716  by  Bishop 
Ash,  who  died  in  1717.  The  story,  however,  was  vigorously 
denied  by  many  of  Swift's  and  Stella's  most  intimate  friends. 
Swift's  biographers  have  been  much  puzzled  in  regard  to  this 
controversy,  and  range  themselves  on  different  sides  of  the 
question.  Scott,  Craik,  and  in  a  very  qualified  degree,  Leslie 
Stephen  and  Saintsbury  believe  in  the  marriage.  Monck 
Mason  and  Churton  Collins  dispute  the  fact. 

The  evidence  is  roughly  of  three  sorts  :  first,  the  silent  and 
indirect  testimony  of  Swift's  own  character  as  it  gradually 
impresses  itself  upon  a  student  of  his  life  and  writings; 
secondly,  the  evidence  deducible  from  the  words  and  acts  of 
Swift  and  Stella,  the  parties  principal ;  thirdly,  the  external 
testimony  of  friends,  associates,  and  contemporaries  who  are 
most  competent  to  express  an  opinion  in  the  matter.  In 


510  APPENDIX 

the  following  argument  evidence  of  the  first  class  is  directly 
excluded,  for  that  must  be  found  by  each  one  interested  in 
this  aspect  of  the  evidence,  as  it  depends  upon  the  effect  pro- 
duced on  one  personality  by  continued  association  with  the 
intense  personality  of  Jonathan  Swift.  Evidence  of  the  two 
other  classes  is  presented  in  the  pages  from  Churton  Collins 
which  follow. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  the  documents  bearing 
on  Swift's  relations  with  Esther  Johnson  are  very  voluminous, 
and,  from  a  biographical  point  of  view,  of  unusual  value. 
We  have  the  verses  which  he  was  accustomed  to  send  to  her 
on  the  anniversary  of  her  birthday.  We  have  the  "  Journal " 
addressed  to  her  during  his  residence  in  London.  We  have 
allusions  to  her  in  his  most  secret  memoranda.  We  have  the 
letters  written  in  agony  to  Worral,  Stopford,  and  Sheridan, 
when  he  expected  that  every  post  would  bring  him  news  of 
her  death.  We  have  the  prayers  which  he  offered  up  at  her 
bedside  during  her  last  hours  ;  and  we  have  the  whole  history 
of  his  acquaintance  with  her,  written  with  his  own  hand 
while  she  was  lying  un buried  in  her  coffin  —  a  history  intended 
for  no  eye  but  his  own.  Now,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  these  documents,  there  is  not  one  line  which  could  by  any 
possibility  be  tortured  into  an  indication  that  she  was  his 
wife.  Throughout  the  language  is  the  same.  He  addresses 
her  as  the  '  kindest  and  wisest  of  his  friends.'  He  described 
her  in  his  "  Memoir  "  as  <  the  truest,  most  virtuous,  and  val- 
uable friend  that  I,  or  perhaps  any  other  person,  was  ever 
blessed  with/  In  all  his  letters  he  alludes  to  her  in  similar 
terms.  In  the  Diary  at  Hollyhead  she  is  his  ( dearest  friend/ 
At  her  bedside,  when  the  end  was  hourly  expected,  he  prays 
for  her  as  his  'dear  and  useful  friend/  < There  is  not,'  he 
writes  to  Dr.  Stopford  on  the  occasion  of  Stella's  fatal  illness, 
<  a  greater  folly  than  that  of  entering  into  too  strict  and  par- 
ticular friendship,  with  the  loss  of  which  a  man  must  be 
absolutely  miserable,  but  especially  at  an  age  when  it  is  too 
late  to  engage  in  a  new  friendship ;  besides,  this  was  a  person 


APPENDIX  511 

of  my  own  rearing  and  instructing  from  childhood ;  but,  par- 
don me,  I  know  not  what  I  am  saying,  but,  believe  me,  that 
violent  friendship  is  much  more  lasting  and  engaging  than 
violent  love.'  If  Stella  was  his  wife,  could  hypocrisy  go 
further?  It  is  certain  that  he  not  only  led  all  who  were 
acquainted  with  him  to  believe  that  he  was  unmarried,  but, 
whenever  he  spoke  of  wedlock  he  spoke  of  it  as  a  thing 
utterly  alien  to  his  tastes  and  inclinations.  '  I  never  yet/  he 
once  said  to  a  gentleman  who  was  speaking  to  him  about 
marriage,  'saw  the  woman  I  would  wish  to  make  my  wife.7 
It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  instances,  both  in  his  corre- 
spondence and  in  his  recorded  conversation,  in  which,  if  he 
was  even  formally  a  married  man,  he  went  out  of  his  way  to 
indulge  in  unnecessary  hypocrisy.  What,  again,  could  be  more 
improbable  than  that  Esther  Johnson,  a  woman  of  distin- 
guished piety,  nay,  a  woman  whose  detestation  of  falsehood 
formed,  as  Swift  has  himself  told  us,  one  of  her  chief  attrac- 
tions, would  when  on  the  point  of  death,  preface  her  will  with 
a  wholly  gratuitous  lie?  For  not  only  is  that  will  signed  with 
her  maiden  name,  but  in  the  first  clause  she  describes  herself 
as  an  unmarried  woman. 

The  external  evidence  against  the  marriage  appears  equally 
conclusive.  If  there  was  any  person  entitled  to  speak  with 
authority  on  the  subject,  that  person  was  assuredly  Mrs.  Ding- 
ley.  For  twenty-nine  years,  from  the  commencement,  that  is 
to  say,  of  Swift's  intimate  connection  with  Stella  till  the  day 
of  Stella's  death,  she  had  been  her  inseparable  companion, 
her  friend  and  confidant.  She  had  shared  the  same  lodgings 
with  her ;  it  was  understood  that  Swift  and  Esther  were  to 
have  no  secrets  apart  from  her.  When  they  met,  they  met  in 
her  presence ;  what  they  wrote,  passed,  by  Swift's  special 
request,  through  her  Jiands.  Now  it  is  well  known  that 
Mrs.  Dingley  was  convinced  that  no  marriage  had  ever  taken 
place.  The  whole  story  was,  she  said,  an  idle  tale.  Two  of 
Stella's  executors,  Dr.  Corbet  and  Mr.  Eochford,  distinctly 
stated  that  no  suspicion  of  a  marriage  had  ever  even  crossed 


512  APPENDIX 

their  minds,  though  they  had  seen  the  Dean  and  Esther 
together  a  thousand  times.  Swift's  housekeeper,  Mrs.  Brent, 
a  shrewd  and  observant  woman,  who  resided  at  the  deanery 
during  the  whole  period  of  her  master's  intimacy  with  Miss 
Johnson,  was  satisfied  that  there  had  been  no  marriage.  So 
Mrs.  Kidgeway,  who  succeeded  her  as  housekeeper,  and  who 
watched  over  the  Dean  in  his  declining  years.  But  no  testi- 
mony could  carry  greater  weight  than  that  of  Dr.  John  Lyon. 
He  was  one  of  Swift's  most  intimate  friends,  and,  when  the 
state  of  the  Dean's  health  was  such  that  it  had  become  neces- 
sary to  place  him  under  surveillance,  Lyon  was  the  person 
selected  to  undertake  the  duty.  He  lived  with  him  at  the 
deanery ;  he  had  full  control  over  his  papers ;  he  was  conse- 
quently brought  into  contact  with  all  who  corresponded  with 
him,  and  with  all  who  visited  him.  He  had  thus  at  his  com- 
mand every  contemporary  source  of  information.  Not  long 
after  the  story  was  first  circulated,  he  set  to  work  to  ascertain, 
if  possible,  the  truth.  The  result  of  his  investigations  was 
to  convince  him  that  there  was  absolutely  no  foundation  for 
it  but  popular  gossip,  unsupported  by  a  particle  of  evidence. 
Such  is  the  testimony  against  the  marriage.  Let  us  now 
briefly  review  the  evidence  in  its  favour.  The  first  writer  who 
mentions  it  is  Orrery,  and  his  words  are  these :  '  Stella  was 
the  concealed  but  undoubted  wife  of  Dr.  Swift,  and  if  my 
informations  are  right,  she  was  married  to  him  in  the  year 
1716  by  Dr.  Ash,  then  Bishop  of  Clogher.'  On  this  we  need 
merely  remark  that  he  offers  no  proof  whatever  of  what  he 
asserts,  though  he  must  have  known  well  enough  that  what 
he  asserted  was  contrary  to  current  tradition ;  that  in  thus 
expressing  himself  he  was  guilty  of  gross  inconsistency,  as 
he  had  nine  years  before  maintained  the  opposite  opinion  ;  and 
that  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  he  resorted  to  this 
fiction,  as  he  resorted  to  other  fictions,  with  the  simple  object 
of  seasoning  his  narrative  with  the  piquant  scandal  in  which 
he  notoriously  delighted.  The  next  deponent  is  Delany,  whose 
independent  testimony  would  undoubtedly  have  carried  great 


APPENDIX  513 

weight  with  it.  But  Delany  simply  follows  Orrery,  without 
explaining  his  reason  for  doing  so,  without  bringing  forward 
anything  in  proof  of  what  Orrery  had  stated,  and  without 
contributing  a  single  fact  on  his  own  authority.  Then  comes 
Deane  Swift.  All  that  he  contributes  to  the  question  is  sim- 
ply the  statement  that  he  was  thoroughly  persuaded  that 
Swift  was  married  to  Stella  in  or  about  1716.  But  he  gives 
no  explanation  of  what  induced  his  persuasion,  and  admits 
that  there  was  no  evidence  at  all  of  the  marriage.  And,  unsat- 
isfactory as  his  testimony  is,  it  is  rendered  more  so  by  the 
fact  that  some  years  before  he  had,  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Orrery, 
stated  that  to  many  the  marriage  seemed  based  only  <on  a 
buzz  and  rumors.7  Such  was  the  story  in  its  first  stage.  In 
1780  a  new  particular  was  added,  and  a  new  authority  cited. 
The  new  particular  was  that  the  marriage  took  place  in  the 
garden ;  the  new  authority  was  Dr.  Samuel  Madden,  and  the 
narrator  was  Dr.  Johnson.  Of  Madden  it  may  suffice  to  say 
that  there  is  no  proof  that  he  was  acquainted  either  with 
Swift  himself  or  with  any  member  of  Swift's  circle ;  that  in 
temper  and  blood  he  was  half  French,  half  Irish;  and  that 
as  a  writer  he  is  chiefly  known  as  the  author  of  a  work  wilder 
and  more  absurd  than  the  wildest  and  most  absurd  of  Whis- 
ton's  prophecies  or  Asgill's  paradoxes.  .  On  the  value  of  the 
unsupported  testimony  of  such  a  person  there  is  surely  no 
necessity  for  commenting.  Next  comes  Sheridan's  account, 
which,  as  it  adds  an  incident  very  much  to  Swift's  discredit, 
it  is  necessary  to  examine  with  some  care.  The  substance  of 
it  is  this: — that,  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  Stella,  Swift 
consented  to  marry  her ;  that  the  marriage  ceremony  was  per- 
formed without  witnesses,  and  on  two  conditions  —  first,  that 
they  should  continue  to  live  separately;  and  secondly,  that 
their  union  should  remain  a  secret ;  that  for  some  years  these 
conditions  were  observed,  but  that  on  her  death-bed  Stella 
implored  Swift  to  acknowledge  her  as  his  wife ;  that  to  this 
request  Swift  made  no  reply,  but,  turning  on  his  heel,  left  the 
room,  and  never  afterwards  saw  her.  The  first  part  of  this 


514  APPENDIX 

story  he  professes  to  have  derived  from  Mrs.  Sican,  the  second 
part  from  his  father.  We  have  no  right  to  charge  Sheridan 
with  deliberate  falsehood,  but  his  whole  account  of  Swift's 
relations  with  Miss  Johnson  teems  with  inconsistencies  and 
improbabilities  so  glaring  that  it  is  impossible  to  place  the 
smallest  confidence  in  what  he  says.  He  here  tells  us  that 
the  marriage  had  been  kept  a  profound  secret;  in  another 
place  •  he  tells  us  that  Stella  had  herself  communicated  it 
to  Miss  Vanhomrigh.  He  admits  that  the  only  unequivocal 
proof  of  the  marriage  is  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Sheridan,  and 
yet  in  his  account  of  the  marriage  he  cites  as  his  authority, 
not  Dr.  Sheridan,  but  Mrs.  Sican.  But  a  single  circumstance, 
is,  perhaps,  quite  sufficient  to  prove  the  utterly  untrustworthy 
character  of  his  assertions.  He  informs  us,  on  the  authority 
of  his  father,  that  Stella  was  so  enraged  by  Swift's  refusal 
to  acknowledge  her  as  his  wife,  that  to  spite  and  annoy  him 
she  bequeathed  her  fortune  to  a  public  charity.  A  reference 
to  Swift's  correspondence  will  show  that  it  was  in  accordance 
with  his  wishes  that  she  thus  disposed  of  her  property.  A 
reference  to  the  will  itself  will  show  that,  so  far  from  express- 
ing  ill-will  towards  him,  she  left  him  her  strong  box  and  all 
her  papers.  Nor  is  this  all.  His  statement  is  flatly  contra- 
dicted both  by  Delany  and  Deane  Swift.  Delany  tells  us  that 
he  had  been  informed  by  a  friend  that  Swift  had  earnestly 
desired  to  acknowledge  the  marriage,  but  that  Stella  had 
wished  it  to  remain  a  secret.  Deane  Swift  assured  Orrery, 
on  the  authority  of  Mrs.  Whiteway,  that  Stella  had  told  Sheri- 
dan 'that  Swift  had  offered  to  declare  the  marriage  to  the 
world,  but  that  she  had  refused.'  Again,  Sheridan  asserts 
that  his  father,  Dr.  Sheridan,  was  present  during  the  supposed 
conversation  between  Swift  and  Stella.  Mrs.  Whiteway,  on 
the  contrary,  assured  Deane  Swift  that  Dr.  Sheridan  was  not 
present  on  that  occasion. 

This  brings  us  to  the  last  deponent  whose  evidence  is  worth 
consideration.  In  1789  Mr.  Monck-Berkeley  brought  forward 
the  authority  of  a  Mrs.  Hearne,  who  was,  it  seems,  a  niece 


APPENDIX  515 

of  Esther  Johnson,  to  prove  that  the  Dean  had  made  Stella 
his  wife.  As  nothing,  however,  is  known  of  the  history  of 
Mrs.  Hearne,  and  as  she  cited  nothing  in  corroboration  of  her 
statement,  except  vaguely  that  it  was  a  tradition  among  her 
relatives  —  a  tradition  which  was,  of  course,  just  as  likely  to 
have  had  its  origin  from  the  narratives  of  Orrery  and  Delany 
as  in  any  authentic  communication  —  no  importance  what- 
ever can  be  attached  to  it.  But  the  evidence  on  which  Monck- 
Berkeley  chiefly  relied  was  not  that  of  Mrs.  Hearne.  '  I  was,7 
he  says,  '  informed  by  the  relict  of  Bishop  Berkeley  that  her 
husband  had  assured  her  of  the  truth  of  Swift's  marriage, 
as  the  Bishop  of  Clogher,  who  had  performed  the  ceremony, 
/had  himself  communicated  the  circumstance  to  him.'  If  this 
could  be  depended  on,  it  would,  of  course,  settle  the  question ; 
but,  unfortunately  for  Monck-Berkeley  and  for  Monck-Berke- 
ley's  adherents,  it  can  be  conclusively  proved  that  no  such 
communication  could  have  taken  place.  In  1715,  a  year 
before  the  supposed  marriage  was  solemnized,  Berkeley  was 
in  Italy,  where  he  remained  till  1721.  Between  1716  and 
1717  it  is  certain  that  the  Bishop  of  Clogher  never  left  Ireland, 
and  at  the  end  of  1717  he  died.  As  for  the  testimony  on 
which  Scott  lays  so  much  stress  —  the  story,  that  is  to  say, 
about  Mrs.  Whiteway  having  heard  Swift  mutter  to  Stella 
that  *  if  she  wished,  it  should  be  owned,'  and  of  having  heard 
Stella  sigh  back  to  Swift  that  ( it  was  too  late '  —  it  need  only 
be  observed,  first,  that  it  was  communicated  about  seventy 
years  after  the  supposed  word's  had  been  spoken,  not  by  the 
son  of  Mrs.  Whiteway,  who,  had  he  known  of  it  or  had  he 
attached  the  smallest  importance  to  it,  would  have  inserted 
it  in  his  "Memoirs  of  Swift,"  but  by  her  grandson,  Theophilus 
Swift,  who  was  the  laughing-stock  of  all  who  knew  him; 
secondly,  it  was  admitted  that  those  words,  and  that  those 
words  only,  had  been  heard,  and  consequently  there  was 
nothing  to  indicate  either  that  the  words  themselves,  or  that 
the  conversation  of  which  they  formed  a  portion,  had  any 
reference  to  the  marriage. 


516  APPENDIX 

How,  then,  stands  the  case  ?  Even  thus.  Against  the  mar- 
riage we  have  the  fact  that  there  is  no  documentary  evidence 
of  its  having  been  solemnized ;  that,  so  far  from  there  being 
any  evidence  of  it  deducible  from  the  conduct  of  Swift  and 
Stella,  Orrery  himself  admits  that  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  prove  that  they  had  ever  been  alone  together 
during  their  whole  lives.  We  have  the  fact  that  Esther  John- 
son, at  a  time  when  there  could  have  been  no  possible  motive 
for  falsehood,  emphatically  asserted  that  she  was  unmarried : 
the  fact  that  Swift  led  every  one  to  believe  that  he  was 
unmarried :  the  fact  that  Esther  Johnson's  bosom  friend  and 
inseparable  companion  was  satisfied  that  there  had  been  no 
marriage :  the  fact  that  two  of  Swift's  housekeepers,  two  of 
Stella's  executors,  and  Dr.  Lyon,  were  satisfied  that  there  had 
been  no  marriage.  It  is  easy  to  say  that  all  that  has  been 
advanced  merely  proves  that  the  marriage  was  a  secret,  and 
that  the  secret  was  well  kept.  But  that  is  no  answer.  The 
question  must  be  argued  on  evidence ;  and  it  is  incumbent  on 
those  who  insist,  in  the  teeth  of  such  evidence  as  has  been 
adduced,  that  a  marriage  was  solemnized,  to  produce  evidence 
as  satisfactory.  This  they  have  failed  to  do.  Till  they  have 
done  so,  let  us  decline  to  charge  Swift  with  mendacity  and 
hypocrisy,  and  to  convict  him  of  having  acted  both  meanly 
and  treacherously  in  his  dealings  with  the  two  women  whose 
names  will  for  all  time  be  bound  up  with  his.  In  itself  it 
matters  not  two  straws  to  anyone  whether  Swift  was  or  was 
not  the  husband  of  Stella.  But  the  point  of  importance  is 
this.  If  he  was  the  husband  of  Stella,  his  conduct  to  Miss 
Vanhomrigh  admits  of  no  defence  —  it  was  unmanly  and  dis- 
honorable. If  he  was  not  married  to  Stella,  the  fate  of  her 
rival  leaves  no  stain  on  his  memory.  Moral  courage  in  a 
man's  relations  with  men  is,  it  is  true,  quite  compatible  with 
moral  cowardice  in  his  relations  with  women,  but  that  this 
deplorable  anomaly  finds  illustration  in  Swift  is  at  present 
mere  assumption.1 

1  John  Churton  Collins.    Jonathan  Swift.    Ch.  vi,  pp.  146-157. 


APPENDIX  517 

XXII 

MATERIAL  FOE  BKIEFING 
The  Act  of  18731 

Fellow-citizens :  I  have  come  from  the  east  to  the  west  to 
speak  to  you  for  honest  money.  I  do  not  imagine  myself 
to  be  in  an  "  enemy's  country."  There  is  to  me  no  enemy's 
country  within  the  boundaries  of  this  republic.  Wherever  I 
am  among  Americans  I  am  among  fellow-citizens  and  friends, 
bound  together  by  common  interests  and  a  common  patriotism. 
In  this  spirit  I  shall  discuss  the  question  of  the  day.  I  shall 
not  deal  in  financial  philosophy,  but  in  hard  and  dry  facts. 

There  are  sporadic  discontents  in  the  country,  partly  gen- 
uine, partly  produced  by  artificial  agitation.  They  may  be 
specified  thus :  there  are  farmers  who  complain  of  the  low 
prices  of  agricultural  products ;  laboring  men  complaining  of 
a  lack  of  remunerative  employment ;  men  in  all  sorts  of  pur- 
suits complaining  of  a  general  business  stagnation  and  of  a 
scarcity  of  money.  In  some  parts  of  the  country,  especially 
the  south  and  west,  there  are  many  people  complaining  of 
a  want  of  capital  and  a  too  high  rate  of  interest.  The  cry 
for  more  money  is  the  favorite  cry.  These  are  the  principal 
and  the  most  definite  complaints.  Beyond  them,  however,  an 
impression  has  been  spread  by  agitators  that  an  organized 
conspiracy  of  moneyed  men,  mainly  great  bankers,  in  America 
and  in  Europe,  backed  by  the  monarchs  and  aristocracies  of 
the  old  world,  is  seeking  the  general  establishment  of  the 
gold  standard  of  value  to  monopolize  or  "  corner  "  the  world's 
money  to  the  general  detriment. 

All  this  has  found  definite  expression  in  the  following 
declaration  of  the  Chicago  platform:  "We  declare  that  the 

1Part  of  speech  before  American  Honest  Money  League,  Chicago, 
September  5,  1896.  Carl  Schurz. 


518  APPENDIX 

act  of  1873,  demonetizing  silver  without  the  knowledge  or 
approval  of  the  American  people,  has  resulted  in  the  appre- 
ciation of  gold  and  a  corresponding  fall  in  the  prices  of  com- 
modities produced  by  the  people ;  a  heavy  increase  in  the 
burden  of  taxation  and  of  all  debts,  public  and  private ;  the 
enrichment  of  the  money-lending  class  at  home  and  abroad, 
prostration  of  industry,  and  impoverishment  of  the  people." 

Mark  well  that  all  these  evil  consequences  are  ascribed  to 
the  demonetization  of  silver  in  the  United  States  alone  —  not 
to  its  demonetization  anywhere  else.  This  is  to  justify  the 
presentation,  as  a  sufficient  remedy,  of  the  free  coinage  of 
silver  in  the  United  States  alone,  "without  waiting  for  the  aid 
or  consent  of  any  other  nation."  This  platform  is  amplified 
by  free-coinage  orators,  who  tell  us  that  the  act  of  1873, 
called  "the  crime  of  1873,"  has  surreptitiously  "wiped  out" 
one  half  of  the  people's  money,  namely,  silver ;  that  in  conse- 
quence the  remaining  half  of  our  metallic  money,  namely,  gold, 
as  a  basis  of  the  whole  financial  structure,  has  to  do  the  same 
business  that  formerly  was  done  by  gold  and  silver  together; 
that  thereby  gold  has  risen  to  about  double  its  former  purchas- 
ing power,  the  gold  dollar  being  virtually  a  200-cent  dollar ; 
that  the  man  who  produces  things  for  sale  is  thus  being  robbed 
of  half  the  price,  while  debts  payable  on  the  gold  basis  have 
become  twice  as  heavy,  and  that  this  fall  of  prices  and  increase 
of  burdens  is  enriching  the  money  changers  and  oppressing 
the  people. 

Are  these  complaints  well  founded?  Look  at  facts  which 
nobody  disputes.  That  there  has  been  a  considerable  fall  in 
the  prices  of  many  articles  since  1873  is  certainly  true.  But 
was  this  fall  caused  by  the  so-called  demonetization  of  silver 
through  the  act  of  1873  ?  Now,  not  to  speak  of  other  periods 
of  our  history,  such  as  the  period  from  1846  to  1851,  every- 
body knows  that  there  was  a  considerable  fall  of  prices,  not 
only  as  to  agricultural  products  —  cotton,  for  instance,  dropped 
from  $1  a  pound  in  1864  to  17  cents  in  1871— but  in  many 
kinds  of  industrial  products,  before  1873.  What  happened 


APPENDIX  519 

before  1873  cannot  have  been  caused  by  what  happened  in 
1873.  This  is  clear.  The  shrinkage  after  1873  may,  there- 
fore, have  been  caused-  by  something  else. 

Another  thing  is  equally  clear.  Whenever  a  change  in 
the  prices  of  commodities  is  caused  by  a  change  in  supply  or 
demand,  or  both,  then  it  may  affect  different  articles  differ- 
ently. Thus  wheat  may  rise  in  price,  the  supply  being  propor- 
tionately short,  while  at  the  same  time  cotton  may  decline  in 
price,  the  supply  being  proportionately  abundant.  But  when 
a  change  of  prices  takes  place  in  consequence  of  a  great  change 
in  the  purchasing  power  of  the  money  of  the  country,  espe- 
cially when  that  change  is  sudden,  then  the  effect  must  be 
equal,  or  at  least  approximately  so,  as  to  all  articles  that  are 
bought  or  sold  with  that  money.  If  by  the  so-called  demon- 
etization of  silver  in  1873  the  gold  dollar,  or  the  dollar  on  the 
gold  basis,  became  a  200-cent  dollar  at  all,  then  it  became  a 
200-cent  dollar  at  once  and  for  everything.  It  could  not  possi- 
bly be  at  the  same  time  a  200-cent  dollar  for  wheat  and  a  120- 
cent  dollar  for  coal,  and  a  150-cent  dollar  for  cotton,  and  a 
100-cent  dollar  for  corn  or  for  shovels.  I  challenge  any  one 
to  gainsay  this. 

Now  for  the  facts.  The  act  of  1873  in  question  became  a 
law  on  the  12th  of  February.  What  was  the  effect?  Wheat, 
rye,  oats,  and  corn  rose  above  the  price  of  1872,  while  cotton 
declined.  In  1874  wheat  dropped  a  little  ;  corn  made  a  jump 
upward ;  cotton  declined ;  oats  and  rye  rose.  In  1875  there 
was  a  general  decline.  In  1876  there  was  a  rise  in  wheat  and 
a  decline  in  corn,  oats,  rye,  and  cotton.  In  1877  there  was 
another  rise  in  wheat  carrying  the  price  above  that  of  1870 
and  up  to  that  of  1871,  years  preceding  the  act  of  1873.  Evi- 
dently so  far  the  200-cent  dollar  had  not  made  its  mark  at  all. 
But  I  will  admit  the  possible  plea,  that,  as  they  say,  the  act 
of  1873  having  been  passed  in  secret,  people  did  not  know 
anything  about  it,  and  prices  remained  measurably  steady,  in 
ignorance  of  what  dreadful  things  had  happened.  If  so,  then 
it  would  appear  that,  if  the  knowing  ones  had  only  kept  still 


520  APPENDIX 

about  it,  the  gold  dollar  would  have  modestly  remained  a  10< 
cent  dollar,  and  nobody  would  have  been  hurt.  But,  serious] 
speaking,  it  may  be  said  that  when  the  act  of  1873  was  passe 
we  were  still  using  exclusively  paper  money;  that  neither  go] 
nor  silver  was  in  circulation,  and  that  therefore  the  demoi 
etization  would  not  be  felt.  Very  well.  But  then  in  187 
specie  payments  were  resumed.  Metallic  money  circulate 
again.  And,  more  than  that,  the  cry  about  "  the  crime  < 
1873  "  resounded  in  Congress  and  in  the  country.  Then,  { 
last,  the  200-cent  gold  dollar  had  its  opportunity.  Price 
could  no  longer  plead  ignorance.  What  happened  ?  In  18£ 
wheat  rose  above  the  price  of  1879,  likewise  corn,  cotton,  an 
oats.  In  1881  wheat  rose  again,  also  corn,  oats,  and  cottoi 
In  1882  wheat  and  cotton  declined,  while  corn  and  oats  ros 
The  reports  here  given  are  those  of  the  New  York  marke 
They  may  vary  somewhat  from  the  reports  of  farm  prices,  bi 
they  present  the  rises  and  declines  of  prices  with  substanti; 
correctness. 

These  facts  prove  conclusively  to  every  sane  mind  that  f< 
nine  years  after  the  act  of  1873  —  six  years  before  and  thrt 
years  after  the  resumption  of  specie  payments  —  the  prices  < 
the  agricultural  staples  mentioned,  being  in  most  instanc< 
considerably  above  1860,  show  absolutely  no  trace  of  ai 
such  effect  as  would  have  been  produced  upon  them  had 
great  and  sudden  change  in  the  purchasing  power  of  tl 
money  of  the  country  taken  place ;  that  it  would  be  childis 
to  pretend  that  but  for  the  act  of  1873  those  prices  would  1 
100,  or  50,  or  25,  or  10  per  cent  higher  ;  and  that,  therefor 
all  this  talk  about  the  gold  dollar  having  become  a  200-ce] 
dollar,  or  a  150-cent  dollar,  or  a  125-cent  dollar,  is  —  pardc 
the  expression  —  arrant  nonsense.  Since  1882  the  price  < 
wheat  has,  indeed,  very  much  declined,  although  in  1891 
reached  once  more  in  New  York  $1.09,  while  corn  sold  i 
1891  two,  three,  and  four  cents  higher  than  in  1879.  Bi 
if  the  act  of  1873,  which,  had  it  really  enhanced  the  pu 
chasing  power  of  the  dollar,  would  have  done  so  prompt" 


APPENDIX  521 

and  uniformly,  produced  no  such  effect  for  nine  years  after 
its  enactment,  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  it  produces  it 
twenty  years  after  its  enactment.  Is  not  this  clear? 

If,  however,  there  be  somebody  believing  that  in  spite  of 
these  facts  the  demonetization  of  silver  by  the  act  of  1873 
must  in  some  mysterious  way  have  done  something  to  depress 
prices,  I  meet  him  with  the  affirmation  that  the  silver  dollar 
was  practically  demonetized  long  before  1873.  To  judge  from 
the  speeches  of  our  free-coinage  orators,  the  American  people 
must  before  1873  have  fairly  wallowed  in  silver  dollars. 
What  is  the  fact  ?  President  Jefferson  stopped  the  coinage 
of  silver  dollars  in  1806.  From  1783  to  1878,  aside  from 
fractional  currency  —  which  since  1853  was  only  limited  legal 
tender — only  about  8,000,000  of  silver  dollars  were  coined. 
They  were  so  scarce  that  you  would  hardly  ever  see  one  except 
in  .a  curiosity  shop  as  a  rare  coin. 

There  was  constant  trouble  with  the  legal  ratio  between 
gold  and  silver,  which  could  not  be  so  fixed  as  to  keep  the 
two  rnetals  together  in  circulation.  First  one  of  them  would 
be  driven  out  of  the  country  and  then  the  other.  Meanwhile, 
over  $1,000,000,000  of  gold  coin  was  coined,  and  since  1853 
gold  was  substantially  the  only  full  legal  tender  money  in 
actual  circulation.  And  those  were  exceptionally  prosperous 
times.  Then  the  civil  war  came  and  swept  all  our  metallic 
money  out  of  sight.  Paper  money  took  its  place,  and  in  that 
condition  we  were  in  1873,  when  the  famous  act  of  1873  was 
passed.  What,  then,  was  in  reality  that  law  that  has  since 
been  so  fiercely  denounced  as  "  the  crime  of  1873  "  ?  To  judge 
from  the  declamations  of  the  free-coinage  orators,  it  must 
have  been  a  law  annihilating  at  one  fell  swoop  one  half  of 
the  money  circulating  among  the  people.  Did  it  do  that? 
Why,  it  was  simply  an  act  revising  our  coinage  laws  and  pro- 
viding among  other  things  that  certain  silver  coins  should  be 
struck  to  hft  lfip-a.1  tfinrlp.r  in  thp,  -na.vmpnt  of  rJp.hts  nnlv  t.n  a. 


522  APPENDIX 

its  coinage,  was  simply  not  mentioned  in  the  enumeration. 
That  is  all.  The  act  of  1873,  therefore,  did  not  create  a  new 
state  of  things,  but  simply  recognized  a  state  of  things  which 
had  existed  for  many  and  many  years.  It  did  thereby  not 
only  not  destroy  half  the  money  of  the  country,  but  not  a 
single  dollar  of  it. 

But,  I  hear  myself  asked,  if  this  is  so,  why  was  this  act  of 
1873  passed  secretly,  surreptitiously,  stealthily  ?  For  silver 
orators  have  been  persistently  dinning  into  the  popular  ear 
for  many  years,  until  millions  believed  it,  the  story  that  the 
silver  dollar  was  "assassinated57  through  the  law  of  1873  by 
some  dark,  corrupt  plot.  This  fable  has  been  so  often  and  so 
authoritatively  disproved  that  I  am  unwilling  to  take  it  up 
again  in  detail.  Senator  Sherman  did  that  recently  in  a  most 
conclusive  manner.  I  will  only  add  that  I  was  a  member  of 
the  Senate  at  the  time  and  know  whereof  I  affirm  ;  and  I 
emphatically  pronounce  all  the  stories  about  the  act  of  1873 
being  passed  surreptitiously;  about  senators  and  members 
being  somehow  hypnotized,  so  that  they  did  not  know  what 
they  were  doing  ;  about  some  Englishman  being  on  the  ground 
with  much  money  to  promote  the  demonetization  of  silver,  and 
so  on,  as  wholly  and  unqualifiedly  false.  .  .  . 

How  did  it  happen  that  the  act  of  1873  did  not  attract  more 
popular  attention  at  the  time  ?  Simply  because  the  dropping 
of  the  obsolete  silver  dollar  from  the  coinage  was  regarded 
by  everybody  taking  an  interest  in  such  matters  as  the  mere 
recording  of  an  accomplished  fact,  as  a  matter  of  course,  just 
as  much  so  as  a  law  would  have  been  providing  that  the  old 
flintlock  should  no  longer  be  used  in  the  army.  And  how  did 
it  happen  that  a  few  years  afterward  such  an  uproar  arose 
about  it  ?  The  reason  for  that,  too,  was  very  simple.  In 
1873  the  market  value  of  silver,  although  already  yielding, 
was  still  high.  The  silver  in  the  silver  dollar  was  worth 
$1.02.  The  silver  mine  owner  did  not  care  to  take  $1.02  to 
the  mint  and  get  only  $1  back  for  it.  He  was  then  enthusi- 
astic for  gold.  But  a  few  years  later  silver  had  declined  in 


APPENDIX  523 

market  value  considerably,  and  when  the  silver  miner  might 
have  taken  90  cents'  worth  of  silver  to  the  mint  and  got  for 
it  $1,  he  was  enthusiastic  for  silver,  and  he  grew  more  and 
more  enthusiastic  the  more  silver  declined  in  the  market,  and 
the  more  profit  free  coinage  would  have  given  him.  The  silver 
mine  owner  is  no  doubt  a  great  and  good  man,  but  he  is  not 
the  most  disinterested  of  philanthropists.  He  knows  on  which 
side  his  bread  is  buttered.  Finding  the  act  of  1873  in  his  way, 
he  discovered  that  act  to  be  a  heinous  crime,  not  against  the 
mining  millionaires,  but  against  the  common  people.  Another 
class  of  persons  joined  in  the  cry,  namely,  those  who  had 
worked  for  an  inflation  of  our  irredeemable  paper  money,  who 
had  opposed  the  resumption  of  specie  payments,  and  now 
favored  the  silver  dollar,  because  the  silver  in  it  was  worth 
in  the  market  less  than  a  gold  dollar,  and  its  coinage  would 
therefore  furnish  what  they  called  "  cheap  money."  And  then 
began  that  campaign  of  fraud  which  in  shamelessness  of 
imposture  has,  within  my  knowledge,  never  had  its  equal. 

Now  mark  what  followed.  Cowed  by  the  uproarious  outcry 
which  was  started  by  the  silver  miners  and  taken  up  by  the 
"  cheap  money  "  men,  Congress  passed  two  laws,  one  in  1878, 
the  other  in  1890,  in  pursuance  of  which  over  429,000,000  of 
silver  dollars  were  added  to  our  currency,  more  than  fifty 
times  as  many  dollars  as  had  ever  been  coined  before,  besides 
a  large  addition  to  our  subsidiary  silver  coins.  Our  paper 
money  was  largely  increased,  so  that  while  in  1873,  the  year 
in  which  the  American  people  were  said  to  have  been  robbed 
of  half  their  money  —  while  in  1873,  I  say,  we  had  $774,- 
000,000  of  money  in  the  United  States,  we  had  $2,217,000,000 
in  1895  —  nearly  three  times  as  much  ;  and  while  in  1873  the 
circulation  was  $18.04  per  capita,  it  was  $22.96  per  capita  in 
1895.  Fifty  times  as  many  silver  dollars,  and  many  times 
more  money  of  all  kinds  than  this  country  had  ever  had  in 
its  most  prosperous  days  —  and  yet,  the  price  of  silver  in  the 
market  kept  on  falling,  and  the  prices  of  many  commodities, 
agricultural  staples  included,  continued  to  decline. 


524  APPENDIX 

Now  analyze  this  case.  Upon  what  ground  do  the  silver 
advocates  assert  that  the  so-called  demonetization  of  silver 
depressed  prices  ?  According  to  their  own  reasoning,  because 
there  has  not  been  sufficient  money  to  sustain  prices.  Sustain 
what  prices  ?  Those  prevailing  before  1873.  But  there  is  now 
three  times  as  much  money  as  there  was  in  1873,  and  a  much 
higher  per  capita  circulation.  Well,  what  becomes  of  their 
argument  ?  Some  of  the  silver  philosophers  have  invented  a 
more  mysterious  phrase  —  that  prices  have  gone  down  because 
by  the  act  of  1873  the  "  money  of  ultimate  redemption  "  had 
been  curtailed  —  only  gold  being  available  for  this  purpose. 
But  according  to  the  treasury  statistics  we  had  in  1873  only 
$25,000,000  of  coin,  including  subsidiary  silver,  in -the  coun- 
try, and  now  we  have  much  over  $600,000,000  of  gold  alone, 
or  more  than  twenty-four  times  as  much  "  money  of  ultimate 
redemption  "  as  in  1873.  And  yet  prices  are  low.  The  man 
whom  such  facts  do  not  convince  that  the  decline  of  prices 
cannot  have  been  caused  by  any  effect  produced  upon  our 
currency  by  the  act  of  1873  must  have  a  skull  so  thick  that  a 
trip  hammer  would  not  drive  a  sound  conclusion  through  it. 

XXIII 

MATERIAL  FOR  BRIEFING1 

Queen  Elizabeth  a  Persecutor* 

It  is  vehemently  maintained  by  some  writers  of  the  present 
day  that  Elizabeth  persecuted  neither  Papists  nor  Puritans 
as  such,  and  that  the  severe  measures  which  she  occasionally 
adopted  were  dictated,  not  by  religious  intolerance,  but  by 
political  necessity.  Even  the  excellent  account  of  those  times 

1  In  briefing  this  argument  the  clearest  result  will  be  secured  if 
Macaulay's  rhetorical  order  be  disregarded  and  the  evidence  be  rear- 
ranged solely  on  logical  grounds.     The  usual  introductory  material  may, 
if  desired,  be  secured  from  standard  histories. 

2  From  Macaulay's  Essay  on  Hallam's  Constitutional  History. 


APPENDIX  525 

which  Mr.  Hallam  has  given  has  not  altogether  imposed 
silence  on  the  authors  of  this  fallacy.  The  title  of  the  Queen, 
they  say,  was  annulled  by  the  Pope ;  her  throne  was  given  to 
another ;  her  subjects  were  incited  to  rebellion ;  her  life  was 
menaced ;  every  Catholic  was  bound  in  conscience  to  be  a 
traitor ;  it  was  therefore  against  traitors,  not  against  Catholics, 
that  the  penal  laws  were  enacted. 

In  order  that  our  readers  may  be  fully  competent  to  appre- 
ciate the  merits  of  this  defence,  we  will  state,  as  concisely  as 
possible,  the  substance  of  some  of  these  laws. 

As  soon  as  Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne,  and  before  the 
least  hostility  to  her  government  had  been  shown  by  the 
Catholic  population,  an  act  passed  prohibiting  the  celebration 
of  the  rites  of  the  Romish  Church,  on  pain  of  forfeiture  for 
the  first  offence,  of  a  year's  imprisonment  for  the  second,  and 
of  perpetual  imprisonment  for  the  third. 

A  law  was  next  made  in  1562,  enacting,  that  all  who  had 
ever  graduated  at  the  Universities  or  received  holy  orders, 
all  lawyers,  and  all  magistrates,  should  take  the  oath  of 
supremacy  when  tendered  to  them,  on  pain  of  forfeiture  and 
imprisonment  during  the  royal  pleasure.  After  the  lapse  of 
three  months,  the  oath  might  again  be  tendered  to  them ; 
and,  if  it  were  again  refused,  the  recusant  was  guilty  of  high 
treason.  A  prospective  law,  however  severe,  framed  to  exclude 
Catholics  from  the  liberal  professions,  would  have  been  mercy 
itself  compared  with  this  odious  act.  It  is  a  retrospective 
statute ;  it  is  a  retrospective  penal  statute ;  it  is  a  retrospec- 
tive penal  statute  against  a  large  class.  We  will  not  posi- 
tively affirm  that  a  law  of  this  description  must  always,  and 
under  all  circumstances,  be  unjustifiable.  But  the  presumption 
against  it  is  most  violent  ;  nor  do  we  remember  any  crisis, 
either  in  our  own  history,  or  in  the  history  of  any  other 
country,  which  would  have  rendered  such  a  provision  neces- 
sary. In  the  present  case,  what  circumstances  called  for 
extraordinary  rigor  ?  There  might  be  disaffection  among  the 
Catholics.  The  prohibition  of  their  worship  would  naturally 


526  APPENDIX 

produce  it.  But  it  is  from  their  situation,  not  from  their 
conduct,  from  the  wrongs  which  they  have  suffered,  not  from 
those  which  they  have  committed,  that  the  existence  of  dis- 
content among  them  must  be  inferred.  There  were  libels,  no 
doubt,  and  prophecies,  and  rumors,  and  suspicions,  strange 
grounds  for  a  law  inflicting  capital  penalties,  ex  pyst  facto,  on 
a  large  body  of  men. 

Eight  years  later,  the  bull  of  Pius  deposing  Elizabeth  pro- 
duced a  third  law.  This  law,  to  which  alone,  as  we  conceive, 
the  defence  now  under  our  consideration  can  apply,  provides 
that,  if  any  Catholic  shall  convert  a  Protestant  to  the  Romish 
Church,  they  shall  both  suffer  death  as  for  high  treason. 

We  believe  that  we  might  safely  content  ourselves  with 
stating  the  fact,  and  leaving  it  to  the  judgment  of  every  plain 
Englishman.  Recent  controversies  have,  however,  given  so 
much  importance  to  this  subject,  that  we  will  offer  a  few 
remarks  on  it. 

In  the  first  place,  the  arguments  which  are  urged  in  favor 
of  Elizabeth  apply  with  much  greater  force  to  the  case  of  her 
sister  Mary.  The  Catholics  did  not,  at  the  time  of  Eliza- 
beth's accession,  rise  in  arms  to  seat  a  Pretender  on  her 
throne.  But  before  Mary  had  given,  or  could  give,  provoca- 
tion, the  most  distinguished  Protestants  attempted  to  set 
aside  her  rights  in  favor  of  the  Lady  Jane.  That  attempt, 
and  the  subsequent  insurrection  of  Wyatt,  furnished  at  least 
as  good  a  plea  for  the  burning  of  Protestants,  as  the  conspir- 
acies against  Elizabeth  furnish  for  the  hanging  and  embowel- 
ling  of  Papists. 

The  fact  is  that  both  pleas  are  worthless  alike.  If  such 
arguments  are  to  pass  current,  it  will  be  easy  to  prove  that 
there  never  was  such  a  thing  as  religious  persecution  since 
the  creation.  For  there  never  was  a  religious  persecution  in 
which  some  odious  crime  was  not,  justly  or  unjustly,  said  to 
be  obviously  deducible  from  the  doctrines  of  the  persecuted 
party.  We  might  say  that  the  Caesars  did  not  persecute  the 
Christians ;  that  they  only  punished  men  who  were  charged, 


APPENDIX  527 

rightly  or  wrongly,  with  burning  Rome,  and  with  committing 
the  foulest  abominations  in  secret  assemblies ;  and  that  the 
refusal  to  throw  frankincense  on  the  altar  of  Jupiter  was 
not  the  crime  but  only  evidence  of  the  crime.  We  might 
say  that  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  was  intended  to 
extirpate,  not  a  religious  sect,  but  a  political  party.  For, 
beyond  all  doubt,  the  proceedings  of  the  Huguenots,  from 
tlie  conspiracy  of  Amboise  to  the  battle  of  Moncontour,  had 
given  much  more  trouble  to  the  French  monarchy  than  the 
Catholics  had  ever  given  to  the  English  monarchy  since  the 
Reformation ;  and  that  too  with  much  less  excuse. 

The  true  distinction  is  perfectly  obvious.  To  punish  a 
man  because  he  has  committed  a  crime,  or  because  he  is 
believed,  though  unjustly,  to  have  committed  a  crime,  is  not 
persecution.  To  punish  a  man  because  we  infer  from  the 
nature  of  some  doctrine  which  he  holds,  or  from  the  conduct 
of  other  persons  who  hold  the  same  doctrines  with  him,  that 
he  will  commit  a  crime,  is  persecution,  and  is,  in  every  case, 
foolish  and  wicked. 

When  Elizabeth  put  Ballard  and  Babington  to  death,  she 
was  not  persecuting.  Nor  should  we  have  accused  her  gov- 
ernment of  persecution  for  passing  any  law,  however  severe, 
against  overt  acts  of  sedition.  But  to  argue  that,  because  a 
man  is  a  Catholic,  he  must  think  it  right  to  murder  a  heret- 
ical sovereign,  and  that  because  he  thinks  it  right  he  will 
attempt  to  do  it,  and  then,  to  found  on  this  conclusion  a  law 
for  punishing  him  as  if  he  had  done  it,  is  plain  persecution. 

If,  indeed,  all  men  reasoned  in  the  same  manner  on  the 
same  data,  and  always  did  what  they  thought  it  their  duty  to 
do,  this  mode  of  dispensing  punishment  might  be  extremely 
judicious.  But  as  people  who  agree  about  premises  often  dis- 
agree about  conclusions,  and  as  no  man  in  the  world  acts  up 
to  his  own  standard  of  right,  there  are  two  enormous  gaps 
in  the  logic  by  which  alone  penalties  for  opinions  can  be 
defended.  The  doctrine  of  reprobation,  in  the  judgment  of 
many  very  able  men,  follows  by  syllogistic  necessity  from  the 


528  APPENDIX 

doctrine  of  election.  Others  conceive  that  the  Antinomian 
heresy  directly  follows  from  the  doctrine  of  reprobation ;  and 
it  is  very  generally  thought  that  licentiousness  and  cruelty  of 
the  worst  description  are  likely  to  be  the  fruits,  as  they 
often  have  been  the  fruits,  of  Antinomian  opinions.  This 
chain  of  reasoning,  we  think,  is  as  perfect  in  all  its  parts  as 
that  which  makes  out  a  Papist  to  be  necessarily  a  traitor. 
Yet  it  would  be  rather  a  strong  measure  to  hang  all  the  Cal- 
vinists,  on  the  ground  that,  if  they  were  spared,  they  would 
infallibly  commit  all  the  atrocities  of  Matthias  and  Knipper- 
doling.  For,  reason  the  matter  as  we  may,  experience  shows 
us  that  a  man  may  believe  in  election  without  believing  in 
reprobation,  that  he  may  believe  in  reprobation  without  being 
an  Antinomian,  and  that  he  may  be  an  Antinomian  without 
being  a  bad  citizen.  Man,  in  short,  is  so  inconsistent  a 
creature  that  it  is  impossible  to  reason  from  his  belief  to 
his  conduct,  or  from  one  part  of  his  belief  to  another. 

We  do  not  believe  that  every  Englishman  who  was  recon- 
ciled to  the  Catholic  Church  would,  as  a  necessary  consequence, 
have  thought  himself  justified  in  deposing  or  assassinating 
Elizabeth.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  the  convert  must 
have  acknowledged  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  that  the 
Pope  had  issued  a  bull  against  the  Queen.  We  know  through 
what  strange  loopholes  the  human  mind  contrives  to  escape, 
when  it  wishes  to  avoid  a  disagreeable  inference  from  an 
admitted  proposition.  We  know  how  long  the  Jansenists  con- 
trived to  believe  the  Pope  infallible  in  matters  of  doctrine, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  believe  doctrines  which  he  pro- 
nounced to  be  heretical.  Let  it  pass,  however,  that  every 
Catholic  in  the  kingdom  thought  that  Elizabeth  might  be 
lawfully  murdered.  Still  the  old  maxim,  that  what  is  the 
business  of  everybody  is  the  business  of  nobody,  is  particu- 
larly likely  to  hold  good  in  a  case  in  which  a  cruel  death  is 
the  almost  inevitable  consequence  of  making  any  attempt. 

Of  the  ten  thousand  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England, 
there  is  scarcely  one  who  would  not  say  that  a  man  who 


APPENDIX  529 

should  leave  his  country  and  friends  to  preach  the  Gospel 
among  savages,  and  who  should,  after  laboring  indefatigably 
without  any  hope  of  reward,  terminate  his  life  by  martyr- 
dom, would  deserve  the  warmest  admiration.  Yet  we  doubt 
whether  ten  of  the  ten  thousand  ever  thought  of  going  on 
such  an  expedition.  Why  should  we  suppose  that  conscien- 
tious motives,  feeble  as  they  are  constantly  found  to  be  in  a 
good  cause,  should  be  omnipotent  for  evil  ?  Doubtless  there 
was  many  a  jolly  Popish  priest  in  the  old  manor-houses  of 
the  northern  counties,  who  would  have  admitted,  in  theory, 
the  deposing  power  of  the  Pope,  but  who  would  not  have 
been  ambitious  to  be  stretched  on  the  rack,  even  though  it 
were  to  be  used,  according  to  the  benevolent  proviso  of  Lord 
Burleigh,  "as  charitably  as  such  a  thing  can  be,"  or  to  be 
hanged,  drawn,  and  quartered,  even  though,  by  that  rare 
indulgence  which  the  Queen,  of  her  special  grace,  certain 
knowledge,  and  mere  motion,  sometimes  extended  to  very 
mitigated  cases,  he  were  allowed  a  fair  time  to  choke  before 
the  hangman  began  to  grapple  in  his  entrails. 

But  the  laws  passed  against  the  Puritans  had  not  even  the 
wretched  excuse  which  we  have  been  considering.  In  this 
case,  the  cruelty  was  equal,  the  danger  infinitely  less.  In 
fact,  the  danger  was  created  solely  by  the  cruelty.  But  it  is 
superfluous  to  press  the  argument.  By  no  artifice  of  inge- 
nuity can  the  stigma  of  persecution,  the  worst  blemish  of  the 
English  Church,  be  effaced  or  patched  over. 


530  APPENDIX 

XXIV 

SPECIMEN  OF   ASSERTIVENESS 
Forensic  A 

The  United  States  Army  should  be  Increased  to  One  Hundred 
Thousand  Men 

(Written  shortly  after  the  Spanish  War) 

The  question  whether  the  United  States  army  should  be 
increased  to  one  hundred  thousand  men  is  one  of  the  most 
important  questions  before  the  country  to-day.  It  deals  with 
the  policy  of  the  United  States  and  should  therefore  be  con- 
sidered very  carefully.  A  year  ago  we  had  a  standing  army 
of  twenty-five  thousand,  and  yet  with  a  standing  army  of  this 
size  we  came  out  of  the  war  with  Spain  successfully.  Why 
should  this  army  be  increased  to  an  army  of  four  times  its  size  ? 

Before  we  debate  the  question  let  us  first  consider  the  full 
meaning  and  import  of  the  terms  of  the  question.  The  term 
United  States  needs  no  explanation,  for  nearly  every  one  knows 
the  meaning  of  these  words.  The  word  "  should  "  needs  the 
most  careful  explanation.  i5;y  this  we  mean  that  it  would  be 
the  best  for  the  United  States  politically  (to  secure  her  against 
foreign  nations),  socially  (for  the  best  interests  of  society), 
and  economically  (the  best  and  cheapest  for  the  people).  By 
4'  standing  army  "  we  mean  the  number  of  soldiers  kept  by  the 
government  ready  for  war  or  ready  for  a  call  at  any  moment, 

With  an  army  of  twenty-five  thousand  we  have  defeated 
Spain  in  a  short  and  successful  war  and  secured  the  country 
against  the  violence  of  mobs  and  strikers.  A  few  years  ago 
the  Indians  were  a  great  deal  more  warlike  than  they  are 
now,  so  a  larger  army  is  unnecessary  to  guard  the  people 
against  them.  The  United  States  should  not  take  such  an 
important  step  as  to  increase  the  army  if  there  is  absolutely 
no  necessity  for  it. 


APPENDIX  531 

The  expense  of  one  soldier  to  the  government  is  about  one 
thousand  dollars  a  year,  even  when  the  soldiers  are  kept  in 
their  country.  If  soldiers  were  sent  into  the  islands  the- 
expense  per  man  would  be  greater,  and  the  expense  of  one 
hundred  thousand  men  would  mean  about  four  dollars  tax 
where  there  is  one  dollar  tax  now. 

Besides  the  amount  of  expense  for  salaries,  food,  transporta- 
tion, etc.,  there  would  be  a  great  additional  amount  in  the  num- 
ber of  pensions,  which  the  government  would  have  to  grant 
if  the  army  were  increased  to  one  hundred  thousand  men. 

The  most  capable  army  officers  we  have  are  graduated  from 
West  Point  where  they  receive  first-rate  military  instruction, 
but  even  now  with  our  present  small  army,  West  Point  gradu- 
ates are  hardly  enough  to  fill  the  positions  made  vacant  in 
the  army. 

What  would  happen  if  our  army  should  be  suddenly 
increased  to  one  hundred  thousand  men?  The  officers  of 
this  increased  army  would  have  to  be  made  up  of  incapable 
men,  who  have  had  no  good  military  instruction  and  are 
fully  incapable  in  every  way.  Perhaps  there  are  some  men 
in  the  country  who  would  be  as  good  officers  as  West  Point 
graduates,  but  the  chances  of  these  good  men  for  getting  the 
positions  are  very  poor  unless  they  have  a  strong  political 
pull,  which  in  these  cases  has  much  power. 

The  people  of  this  country  are  entitled  to  administration 
of  government  with  the  least  possible  expense  and  on  this 
account  a  standing  army  has  always  been  looked  upon  as  a 
necessary  evil,  for  each  soldier  is  a  charge  upon  the  labor  of 
others  and  upon  the  industrial  production,  which  he  does  not 
help  produce,  and  at  the  same  time  he  adds  nothing  to  the 
general  stock  of  wealth  of  the  country. 

Several  years  ago  the  standing  army  of  the  United  States 
was  limited  to  twenty-five  thousand  but  since  then  the  popu- 
lation has  grown  in  proportion  to  this  number ;  but  this  num- 
ber during  all  this  increase  has  been  able  to  keep  the  peace 
in  the  country  and  to  meet  all  military  purposes. 


532  APPENDIX 

The  United  States  has  always  held  a  peaceful  policy  toward 
all  the  countries  of  the  world  but  a  great  increase  of  the 
•standing  army  would  mean  that  the  United  States  had  adopted 
an  imperial  policy,  that  it  was  going  into  "  world  politics  " 
and  was  ready  to  meet  all  comers. 

In  this  argument  we  have  given  several  reasons  why  the 
standing  army  of  the  United  States  should  not  be  increased 
to  one  hundred  thousand  men  and  we  think  of  no  good  reasons 
why  it  should  be  thus  increased. 

We  have  shown  that  the  United  States  standing  army  should 
not  be  increased  to  one  hundred  thousand  men  for :  — 

1.  There  is  no  necessity. 

2.  It  would  be  a  great  expense. 

3.  There  would  not  be  sufficient   capable  officers  for  an 
army  of  this  size. 

4.  A  standing  army  is  a  necessary  evil  and  should  be  kept 
as  small  as  possible. 

5.  The  population  has  outgrown  the  numerical  strength  of 
the  army  in  its  proportion  and  the  army  is  still  enough  for 
all  purposes. 

6.  An  increase  in  the  army  would  be  the  adoption  of  an 
imperial  policy. 

With  these  reasons  we  think  that  we  have  proved  our  side 
of  the  question  without  any  doubt,  and  at  this  point  we  rest 
our  argument. 


APPENDIX  533 

XXV 

SPECIMEN  OF  ASSERTIVENESS 
Forensic  B 

Was  the  Course  of  the  Beaconsfield  Ministry  in  the  Eastern 
Question  Advantageous  to  England  ? 

1.  In  1876  Bulgaria  declared  war  against  Turkey;  and  it 
was  in  this  war  that  Turkey  committed  the  horrible  massacres 
known  as  the  "  Bulgarian  Atrocities." 

2.  The  war  would  never  have  been  begun  between  Turkey 
and  Bulgaria,  had  it  not  been  for  Turkish  misrule,  which  was 
well  known  by  other  countries  as  well  as  by  Bulgaria.     Servia 
and  Montenegro  were  left  alone  to  fight  with  Turkey,  after 
the  other  states  which  belonged  to  the  "  confederacy  "  were 
obliged  to  back  out  for  want  of  supplies.     Of  course,  these 
two  states  could  not  carry  on  war  with  Turkey  on  equal  footing, 
and  soon  a  treaty  for  peace  was  made. 

3.  Now  Russia  put  herself  forward,  and  the  Czar  demanded 
a  treaty  which  much  favored  Bulgaria.    At  this  point  Beacons- 
field  recognized  the  fact  that  Eussia  wanted  to  get  Turkey 
into  her  own  power  and  thereby  enter  Constantinople,  which 
would  give  Russia  the  control  of  the  Black  Sea.     Therefore 
Beaconsfield  used  all  the  influence  he  could  to  preserve  peace 
between  Russia  and  Turkey. 

4.  By  this  time  Russia  had  advanced  her  forces  as  far  as 
Adrianople. 

5.  Russia  claimed,  as  she  always  had,  that  she  was  looking 
after  the  interests  of  the  Christian  subjects  of  the  Sultan. 

6.  Now  this  is  certainly  a  good,  charitable,  and  commend- 
able purpose,  but  it  is  certain  that  there  was  a  deeper  motive 
than  this,  which  made  Russia  so  anxious  to  interfere  with 
Turkey,  namely,  "  Russia  wanted  control  of  Constantinople." 


534  APPENDIX 

7.  Beaconsfield  understood  this  to  be  Russia's  object,  and  he 
ordered  troops  to  be  placed  under  arms,  ready  to  attack  Rus- 
sia at  any  moment ;  and  he  told  Russia  that  if  she  advanced 
further  than  Adrianople  he  would  consider  it  a  casus  belli. 

8.  Beaconsfield  wanted  to  hold  a  conference  of  the  Great 
Powers  of  Europe,  whose  decision  concerning  Turkey  should 
be  final.     But  Russia  would  not  agree  to  any  such  treaty  unless 
certain  agreements,   which  were  favorable  to  Russia,  made 
about  a  year  before,  should  be  adhered  to.     Beaconsfield,  on 
the  other  hand,  would  not  listen  to  Russia's  demand,  and 
for  a  time,  it  seemed  as  though  war  was  certain.     But  by  a 
private  consultation  with  Russia,  Beaconsfield  got  Russia  to 
agree  to  a  treaty  at  Berlin. 

9.  At  this  treaty  Russia  gained  nothing,  owing,  no  doubt, 
to  Beaconsfield's  good  work.     Russia  would  not  be  allowed 
to  have  warships  in  the  Black  Sea.,  and  the  Straits  should 
be  open  to  trading  vessels.     Let  us  consider  a  moment  what 
would  have  been  the  result,  had  Russia  obtained  command  of 
Constantinople. 

10.  Lord  Beaconsfield  once  said,   "Constantinople  is  the 
Key  of  the  East."     If  Russia  had  power  over  Constantinople, 
she  would  have  entire  command  of  the  Black  Sea,  and  also 
command  of  the  way  to  India ;  and  she  would,  in  time,  take 
command  of  India,  which  is  a  fertile  country,  and  therefore 
of  greatest  advantage  to  a  European  country. 

11.  England  owned  India,  and  depended  on  it  for  many 
products,  and  Beaconsfield  saw  that  if  Russia  once  obtained 
command  of  Constantinople  England's  chances  to  keep  India 
would  be  very  small. 

12.  Beaconsfield  obtained  the  island  of  Cyprus  as  a  military 
station,  and  this  was  a  gain  for  which  England  cannot  too 
highly  praise  Beaconsfield.     From  its  geographical  situation 
it  is  clear  that  it  commands  the  territory  which  was  most 
important  to  England.     From  it  England  has  control  of  the 
Suez  Canal,  the  passage  to  India,  which  is  certainly  of  greatest 
importance  to  England. 


APPENDIX  535 

13.  Had  Russia  been  allowed  to  enter  Constantinople  she 
would  virtually  have  had  command  of  all  Europe,  and  this 
would  have  been  a  most  undesirable  state  of  affairs.     Every- 
body knows  what  Russian  government  is,  and  to  think  that 
it  should  be  the  principal  power  in  Europe    can  but  make 
one's  blood  run  cold. 

14.  The  treaty  at  Berlin  roused  all  Europe  against  Russia. 
The  Powers  of  Europe  now  saw  what  a  danger  Russia  was, 
md  what  mischief  she  could  do  if  Turkey  was  in  her  power, 
md  they  therefore  were  ready  to  unite  against  Russia  at 
my  time. 

15.  I  admit  that  the  treaty  did  not  settle  the  question  per- 
nanently,  but  it  was  the  best  thing  which  could  have  been 
lone,  for  by  it  Russia  was  no  nearer  to  Constantinople,  and 
England  had  obtained  the  island  of  Cyprus  as  a  military 
tation.    . 

16.  It  is  argued  that  it  was  a  disgrace  for  Beaconsfield  to 
ake  the  part  of  such  a  depraved,  barbaric  country  as  Turkey ; 
aut  it  seems  to  me  that  such  arguments  should  be  left  out  of 
i  question  of  this  kind.     Beaconsfield  did  take  the  part  of  a 
'  barbaric  "  country,  but  it  was  the  salvation  of  not  only  Eng- 
and  but  of  all  Europe.     Perhaps  he  felt  that  by  taking  Tur- 
tey's  part  England  could  gain  influence  in  Turkey  and  prevent 
he  misrule  which  existed  in  Turkey.     But  we  must  leave 
sentiment  out  of  this  question.     B-eaconsfield  thought  that  a 
reaty  was  the  best  thing,  and  therefore  he  asked  for  one  ; 
md  it  was  the  best  policy.     If  any  one  wants  to  deny  that 
Beaconsfield's  policy  was  not  for  the  best  interests  of  England, 
et  him  offer  a  plan  which  Beaconsfield  ought  to  have  followed. 
Perhaps  such  a  person  will  say  that  England  ought  to  have 
nought  Constantinople  from  Russia,  but  this  is  absurd,  for 
Russia  would  never  have  thought  of  allowing  England  to 
inter  Constantinople,  for  any  sum.     And  to  sell  Constanti- 
lople  to  Russia  would  have  been  anything  but  advantageous 
:o  England,   as   shown  above.     The  only  remaining  course 
vould  have  been  a  war  between  England  and  Russia.     This, 


536  APPENDIX 

no  doubt,  would  have  settled  the  matter.     But  what  an  awful 


thing  would  war  have  been  !     Do  we  not  i 


Iways  hear,  "Let 


arms  alone  when  they  are  not  needed  "  ? 

17.  A  war  between  these  two  countries  wduld  have  resulted 


in  terrible  loss  of  life,  and  tremendous  expe 


se  ;  and  it  might 


have  lasted  for  years  and  years.  After  considering  these  argu- 
ments carefully,  I  question  whether  any  one  can  deny  that 
Beaconsfield's  course  was  advantageous  to  England. 

18.  When  Beaconsfield  returned  to  England  he  was  received 
with  applause  and  welcomed  as  a  benefactor  to  his  country. 
The  Queen  herself  approved  most  heartily  his  policy. 


XXVI 

SPECIMEN  FORENSIC 
Forensic  0 

Were  Sheriff  Martin  and  His  Deputies  Justified  in  Firing  upon 
the  Miners  near  Lattimer,  Pennsylvania,  September  10, 
1897? 

The  word  "  justified  "  admits  of  two  interpretations,  justi- 
fied morally  and  justified  in  point  of  law.  The  two  are  by 
no  means  synonymous.  A  man  may  be  legally  innocent  yet 
morally  guilty,  as  was  Aaron  Burr.  He  may  likewise  even 
be  legally  guilty  yet  morally  innocent. 

•  We  shall  consider  the  question  in  its  moral  sense.  Tha 
Sheriff  and  his  deputies  are  now  on  trial  to  prove  whether  oi 
not  their  act  was  legally  justifiable.  Its  legal  justification 
will  be  determined  by  investigation  made  under  the  fixed 
rules  of  courts.  Its  moral  justification  may  be  just  as  truljj 
determined  by  non-legal  investigation,  provided  that  investi 
gation  adheres  strictly  to  the  facts  in  the  case  and  weighs 
carefully  and  unprejudicedly  the  evidence  upon  it.  And  th| 
moral  investigation  may  be  fairer  than  the  legal  from  the 


APPENDIX  537 

very  fact  that  it  is  not  hampered  by  the  arbitrary  rules  of 
court  procedure  nor  dependent  upon  the  doubtful  decision  of 
a  jury.  If  the  facts  are  true,  the  premises  and  reasoning 
correct,  then  the  conclusion  must  be  true  also. 

It  may  be  well  to  here  set  down  the  occurrence  at  Hazel- 
ton  which  has  given  rise  to  the  question.  It  must  be  stated 
without  details,  only  in  the  barest  outlines,  that  every  one 
may  agree  to  the  statement  to  begin  with,  and  that  it  may 
suggest  the  questions  which  call  for  evidence  on  one  side  or 
the  other. 

On  the  day  of  September  10,  1897,  a  body  of  striking 
miners  formed  to  march  past  Hazelton  to  Lattimer.  At  West 
Hazelton  the  Sheriff  stopped  them,  read  the  Riot  Act,  and 
ordered  them  to  disperse.  They  pressed  on,  and  a  conflict  fol- 
lowed. The  deputies  were  roughly  handled,  and  two  strikers 
were  injured  with  the  butts  of  the  guns.  The  marchers  scat- 
tered, but  kept  on,  determined  to  march  to  Lattimer  in  spite 
of  the  Sheriff's  orders.  The  Sheriff  and  his  deputies  boarded 
trolley  cars,  to  intercept  them.  The  marchers  re-formed, 
gathering  strength  as  they  came.  Just  beyond  Hazelton  they 
were  intercepted  by  the  deputies  under  Sheriff  Martin.  The 
deputies  were  drawn  up  across  the  road  to  prevent  the  march 
of  the  miners.  The  Sheriff  advanced.  He  met  the  miners, 
and  a  struggle  of  some  kind  ensued.  The  deputies  fired  upon 
the  miners  and  killed  twenty-four  of  them. 

The  country  was  at  once  agitated.  The  press  was  divided. 
Part  supported  the  Sheriff.  Part  proclaimed  his  act  murder 
in  cold  blood  and  unprovoked,  and  declared  that  now  the  crisis 
in  the  struggle  of  Labor  and  Capital  had  come.  For  now  the 
capitalist  was  backed  by  the  laws,  and  the  law  by  the  rifle  of 
the  deputies.  Now  if  the  laboring  man  resisted  the  grinding 
of  the  capitalist,  he  was  to  be  shot  down  like  a  dog. 

Great  harm  has  been  done  by  such  articles.  The  dema- 
gogue and  the  agitator  have  been  vastly  aided.  For  the  work- 
ingman  has  been  led  to  forget  that  the  miners  marching  to 
Lattimer  did  not  alone  represent  Labor,  but  that  at  Lattimer 


538  APPENDIX 

were  other  men  who  earned  their  bread  by  the  sweat  of  their 
brows,  men  who  had  no  dispute  and  wanted  to  work.  At  home 
were  wives  and  children  who  looked  to  them  for  bread.  The 
agitator  who  fattens  off  the  strife  of  employer  and  employee 
had  no  hold  on  them.  They  had  no  grievance  and  were  glad 
to  work  that  their  hungry  little  ones  might  be  fed. 

Were  they  to  be  allowed  to  work  ?  No.  This  marching 
body  of  miners  at  Hazelton  was  coming  to  stop  them.  It  has 
been  admitted  on  the  witness  stand.  Men  who  were  shot  at 
Hazelton  had  admitted  under  oath  that  they  were  marching 
to  compel  the  workers  at  Lattimer  to  quit,  whether  they 
wished  to  or  not. 

Now  answer  for  yourselves  this  question,  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  our  investigation  —  Did  the  Sheriff  and  his  deputies 
stand  there  on  the  road  to  Lattimer  to  crush  the  laboring  man 
in  his  struggle  with  Capital,  or  did  they  stand  there  to  protect 
the  laboring  man  as  he  earned  his  daily  bread  ?  Decide  for 
yourselves  what  the  Sheriff  and  his  deputies  were  to  uphold, 
—  the  interests  of  Capital,  or  Law  and  Liberty  to  all. 

The  bare  and  brief  statement  of  the  occurrence  at  Hazel- 
ton  will  suggest  certain  questions  for  your  investigation.  To 
begin  with  —  What  was  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Luzerne 
County  that  made  it  necessary  for  the  Sheriff  to  have  a  body 
of  nearly  a  hundred  deputies?  What  was  the  purpose  ofj 
the  miners  marching  to  Lattimer,  and  in  what  manner  did 
they  march  ?  And  most  important  of  all  —  What  took  place 
when  they  were  met  by  the  Sheriff,  before  the  deputies  fired? 
With  these  questions  answered  it  will  be  possible  to  rightly 
decide  whether  or  not  the  firing  was  justifiable. 

Let  us  answer  these  questions  clearly  and  truly. 

The  County  of  Luzerne  was  in  a  state  of  riot.  "  Breakers  " 
and  mining  property  had  been  damaged,  houses  sacked,  work- 
men driven  from  the  mines  by  force,  those  who  refused  to 
strike  and  march  in  the  processions  had  been  assaulted  and 
beaten.  This  same  body  of  deputies,  only  the  day  before,, 
while  protecting  workmen  at  Stanwood,  had  been  roughly 


APPENDIX  539 

handled,  and  some  severely  beaten.  The  men  had  been  com- 
pelled to  quit  work  in  spite  of  the  efforts  to  protect  them. 
The  same  had  happened  at  the  Hazel  mines. 

The  Lattimer  miners  were  the  only  ones  still  mining.  The 
miners  marching  past  Hazelton  were  going  thither  to  compel 
the  men  at  Lattimer  to  quit  work.  They  have  admitted  under 
oath  and  on  the  witness  stand  that  they  intended  to  force  the 
men  there  to  quit  whether  they  wished  or  not.  Some  of  the 
men  who  have  so  sworn  were  wounded  themselves,  and  in  all 
this  evidence  the  prosecution  alone  has  put  witnesses  on  the 
stand. 

It  is  true  that  the  workers  were  unarmed,  it  is  further 
probably  true  that  they  were  marching  in  ranks  and  in  regular 
order.  But  a  body  of  four  or  five  hundred  men  need  not  be 
armed  to  be  dangerous.  Once  arrived  at  Lattimer,  stones  and 
clubs  would  be  seized,  readily  enough,  and  riot  follow  if  the 
men  then  refused  to  be  driven  from  work.  And  a  mob, 
marching  in  ranks  and  regular  order,  is  no  less  dangerous 
than  one  in  confusion  and  disorder. 

Was  not  their  very  orderliness  indicative  of  a  fixed  purpose 
and  a  determination  far  more  dangerous  than  the  uncertain 
impulse  of  a  disorganized  crowd  ?  ' 

And  now,  what  happened  when  this  body  met  the  deputies 
drawn  up  across  the  road  to  stop  their  march  ?  Again  I  offer 
only  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution,  evidence  of  the  marchers 
themselves  on  the  stand  when  the  Sheriff  and  his  deputies 
were  arraigned  before  the  court,  to  be  held  for  trial. 

By  the  miners'  own  admission,  then,  the  Sheriff  advanced 
in  front  of  his  deputies.  He  commanded  the  procession  to 
halt.  He  ordered  them  to  disperse.  Evidence  conflicts  as 
to  whether  he  read  the  Riot  Act.  He  had  the  paper  in  his 
hand,  and  those  who  swear  he  did  not  read  it  may  have  been 
unable  to  hear  in  the  confusion.  It  matters  little,  for  he  had 
read  the  act  repeatedly  during  four  days,  and  to  this  same  body 
of  marchers  less  than  an  hour  before,  when  he  bade  them  dis- 
perse at  West  Hazelton  and  forbade  the  march  to  Lattimer. 


540  APPENDIX 

The  rear  ranks  pushed  on  the  front.  The  Sheriff  seized 
one  of  the  leaders,  at  the  same  time  drawing  his  revolver. 
The  man,  by  his  own  testimony,  grasped  the  Sheriff's  wrist 
and  forced  his  arm  up  over  his  head.  There  was  a  struggle. 
The  strikers  admit  that  probably  fifty  men  had  passed  the 
Sheriff.  Some  one  cried,  "  Fire."  There  were  two  or  three 
scattered  shots,  then  a  volley. 

Now  how  does  this  case  stand? 

There  had  been  rioting  and  beating  of  men  who  refused  to 
quit  work.  This  body  of  men  marched  toward  Lattimer,  and 
there  was  not  the  slightest  doubt  what  they  intended  to  do. 
They  have  even  admitted  it  themselves.  They  intended  to 
compel  the  men  there  to  quit  work,  not  to  persuade  but  to 
compel  them.  The  Sheriff  must  preserve  law  and  order  in 
his  district.  He  must  see  that  every  man  be  allowed  peace- 
fully to  earn  his  living  and  to  engage  unmolested  in  his 
daily  work.  For  this  very  purpose  it  is  made  possible  for 
the  Sheriff  not  only  to  swear  in  deputies,  but  to  call  out  the 
militia,  and  even  to  call  on  every  able-bodied  man  in  the 
county  to  aid  in  protecting  the  rights  of  peaceful  citizens. 

Such  being  his  duty,  Sheriff  Martin  must  prevent  the  march 
to  Lattimer.  He  endeavored  to  do  so  at  West  Hazelton  with- 
out using  the  rifles  of  his  deputies.  The  mob  handled  them 
roughly,  and  continued  to  march.  The  Sheriff  intercepted  them. 
He  drew  up  his  deputies  across  the  road.  He  advanced  alone, 
and  courageously  bade  the  marchers  halt  and  disperse.  The 
men  crowded  past  him.  He  attempted  to  arrest  one  of  the 
leaders.  He  was  seized,  and  a  struggle  ensued.  The  deputies 
stood  behind  the  Sheriff.  They  saw  him  seized  and  struggling 
among  the  miners.  Already  fifty  had  passed  him  and  more 
were  coming  toward  them.  What  could  they  do  ?  The 
Sheriff  might  be  killed  at  any  moment.  The  mob  might 
charge  among  them,  and  at  close  quarters  their  rifles  would 
be  useless.  They  had  no  bayonets  to  repel  a  charge,  they 
were  outnumbered  five  to  one,  and  in  a  struggle  would  be 
killed  with  their  own  weapons. 


APPENDIX  541 

Most  important  of  all,  they  were  not  police  or  military,  and 
they  were  without  the  leadership  or  tactics  of  such  bodies. 
A  hundred  policemen  or  soldiers  with  leaders  and  discipline, 
and  accustomed  to  such  work,  might  charge  and  disperse  five 
hundred  strikers  without  firing.  A  hundred  deputy  sheriffs 
could  not.  They  were  men  from  all  occupations,  men  of  the 
middle  class,  men  such  as  you  and  I,  and  they  did  what  you 
or  I  or  any  man  would  have  done,  with  rifles  in  our  hands  and 
our  own  lives  in  danger,  not  to  mention  our  leader  and  the 
law-abiding  citizens  whom  we  had  sworn  to  defend  and 
protect. 

They  fired,  for  there  was  nothing  else  to  do  but  fire.  The 
very  way  in  which  they  fired,  a  few  scattering  shots  and  then 
a  volley,  shows  vividly  how  they  waited  and  waited,  loath  to 
use  the  last  force  until  they  were  absolutely  compelled  to  do 
so.  Had  they  not  fired,  no  one  can  say  what  might  have 
happened.  We  can  only  point  to  the  example  of  the  great 
strike  in  Pittsburg  in  1887.  There  the 'militia  weakly  hesi- 
tated to  fire,  and  their  hesitation  cost  'some  of  them  their 
lives  and  lost  them  control  of  the  city.  They  were  driven 
out  by  the  rioters,  and  before  law  and  order  could  be  restored 
by  the  regular  troops  ten  million  dollars'  worth  of  property 
had  been  destroyed  by  pillage  and  arson. 


542  APPENDIX 

XXVII 

A  GOOD  FOEEKSIC 
Forensic  D 

Were  Sheriff  Martin  and  His  Deputies  Justified  in  Shooting 
on  the  Miners  near  Lattimer,  Pennsylvania,  September  10, 
1897? 

(For  an  audience  of  miners  supposed  to  be  in  sympathy  with  the  Lattimer  strikers) 

The  strike  of  coal  miners  in  Pennsylvania,  West  Virginia, 
Ohio,  and  most  of  the  central  states  last  summer  was  an  ably 
conducted  enterprise  of  organized  labor.  As  strikes  have 
become  more  extensive  and  effectual,  recognized  leaders  and 
discipline  have  become  a  necessity,  and  the  "  sympathetic  " 
cooperation  between  different  trades  has  come  prominently 
into  play.  If  we  are  to  look  for  success  to  these  characteris- 
tics, the  late  strike  was  a  credit  to  all  workingmen  concerned. 
President  Katchford  spoke  of  it  as  "the  greatest  victory 
gained  by  trades  unions  for  years,"  and  thankfully  acknowl- 
edged the  indebtedness  of  the  miners  to  other  trades  unions 
and  organizations,  for  material  as  well  as  moral  support.1 

But  it  is  not  only  in  the  matter  of  supplies  that  the  leaders 
of  great  strikes  have  hitherto  met  with  difficulties.  The  task 
of  feeding  the  men  is  slight  compared  to  that  of  keeping  them 
from  returning  to  work.  Where  a  strike  extends  through 
many  states,  local  interests  and  circumstances  come  very  near 
destroying  all  unity  of  purpose.  Some  set  of  miners  are 
likely  enough  to  grow  weary  of  remaining  idle,  or  to  satisfy 
themselves  with  temporary  proposals  of  the  operators,  and 
one  large  colliery  at  work  can  seriously  injure  the  strength  of 
the  strike.  The  men  must  be  kept  in  good  spirits.  The  hopes 
of  those  already  striking  must  be  encouraged,  and  those  who 
remain  stubbornly  at  work  must  be  so  impressed  with  thei 

1  Philadelphia  Press,  September  22,  1897. 


APPENDIX  543 

serious  purpose  of  the  movement  and  their  own  interests  in 
its  speedy  success  that  they  will  be  persuaded  to  join  with 
their  fellow-workmen  and  stop  work.  But  what  is  far  more 
difficult,  all  this  must  be  accomplished  without  violence. 

In  that  serious  and  sometimes  critical  controversy,  the 
strike,  labor  unlike  capital  is  beset  with  the  danger  of  vio- 
lence. Strikers  can  no  more  attain  their  ends  by  violence 
than  can  the  speculators  in  the  stock  markets,  or  lawyers 
before  the  Supreme  Court.  Public  opinion,  common  sense  of 
honor,  rules  them  all,  forbidding  resort  to  force,  whatever  their 
seeming  wrongs.  Back  of  mere  indefinable  honor  lie  the 
formulas  of  the  law.  They  are  the  expression  of  what  men 
have  decided  is  right  for  them  to  do,  and  what  is  not  right. 
And  though  in  the  everyday  humdrum  of  life  we  are  very 
apt  to  forget  it,  these  laws  are  constantly  governing  our 
actions  and  protecting  our  privileges. 

The  leaders  of  strikes  understand  that  men  who  remain  at 
work  are  in  more  effectual  opposition  than  the  employers 
themselves.  To  gain  these  men  to  their  side,  they  know  full 
well,  may  be  to  gain  the  strike.  But  they  know  also  that  all 
men  have  a  right  to  work  if  they  choose,  a  right  which  the 
law  will  protect.  Indeed  they  rely  on  this  right  and  its  legal 
enforcement  when  they  declare  a  strike.  To  deny  to  other 
men  what  they  have  themselves  assumed  is,  they  feel,  hardly 
a  policy  commanding  respect.  Coercion,  even  though  it  were 
not  essentially  repulsive  to  all  fair-minded  men,  is  woefully 
shortsighted  and  will  defeat  itself.  What  then  can  the 
leaders  do  ? 

The  device  adopted  to  meet  this  emergency  in  the  late  coal 
strike  was  at  once  efficient  and  politic.  To  impress  the  men 
remaining  at  work  and  win  their  sympathies,  the  strikers 
were  organized  for  marches  and  camps.  They  marched  from 
mine  to  mine,  and  before  some  mines  set  up  camps.  By  these 
methods  they  could  appeal  directly  to  the  men,  if  somewhat 
theatrically,  without  violating  the  law.  Cases  of  violence 
did  to  be  sure  occur.  Early  in  August  deputies  and  strikers 


544  APPENDIX 

fought  and  drew  blood  at  Plum  Creek.1  In  Corinth,  West 
Virginia,  the  strikers  looted  the  house  of  men  who  remained 
at  work,  and  shot  at  a  deputy  marshal.2  September  13th 
women  armed  with  clubs  attempted  to  drive  men  away  from 
DeArmit's  mine,  and  clubbed  the  deputies.8  But  such  out- 
breaks as  these  occurred  through  no  fault  in  the  leading  and 
directing  of  the  strike,  but  in  spite  of  the  leaders'  efforts  to 
preserve  order.  Judge  Collier,  who  passed  upon  the  injunc- 
tion 4  against  marching,  granted  to  the  New  York  and  Cleve- 
land Gas  Coal  Co.  of  Pittsburg,  after  examining  the  testimony 
there  adduced,  said  that  on  the  whole  "  the  strike  would  go 
down  in  history  as  one  of  the  wonders  of  the  century,  and 
remarkable  on  account  of  the  utter  lack  of  disorder,  for  which 
the  strikers  are  commended,  and  have  the  sympathy  of  the 
Court." 5 

This  very  injunction,  which  the  judge  found  it  impossible 
to  modify,6  and  after  which  numerous  injunctions  were  else- 
where modeled,  put  the  most  severe  test  upon  the  strikers' 
self-control.  It  enjoined  them  from  assembling,  marching  or 
encamping  near  the  company's  works,  and  in  a  clause  aimed 
against  coercion  went  so  far  as  to  restrain  them  from  inducing 
men  to  quit  work.  The  leaders  considered  this  unjust  and 
unconstitutional.  They  knew,  however,  that  the  officers  of 
the  law  must  needs  enforce  it.  They  determined,  therefore, 
to  protest  against  the  injustice  of  such  a  sweeping  injunction, 
without  defying  the  law.  They  did  more,  —  by  the  law  itself 
they  sought  redress.  Said  Patrick  Dolan,6  President  of  the 
United  Mine  Workers,  on  the  day  the  injunction  was  made 
permanent,  "  I  sent  an  order  to  all  of  the  camps  this  afternoon 
to  continue  marching  on  the  same  peaceable  lines  that  we 

1  Philadelphia  Evening  Telegraph,  August  13. 

2  Philadelphia  Ledger,  August  17. 
8  New  York  World,  September  14. 
*  Philadelphia  Ledger,  August  13. 

6  Philadelphia  North  American,  August  17. 
6  Philadelphia  Press,  August  19. 


APPENDIX  545 

have  been  following,  and  I  am  willing  to  abide  by  the  result. 
We  do  not  intend  to  give  up  an  inch  of  what  we  have  gained. 
If  we  are  arrested,  we  will  go  quietly  and  submit  to  whatever 
punishment  is  dealt  out  to  us,  provided  it  is  proved  that  we 
have  broken  the  law.  We  do  not  wish  to  swerve  the  sheriff 
from  the  line  of  his  duty." 

The  sheriff  was  kept  very  busy  in  the  line  of  his  duty. 
Hundreds  of  miners  submitted  to  arrest.  The  jails  were 
crowded,  and  this  though  many  were  released  on  bail.  At 
Fairmont,  West  Virginia,  August  18th,  two  hundred  strikers 
submitted  quietly  to  arrest  at  the  hands  of  ten  deputy 
marshals.1  Twelve  deputies  at  Pittsburg  in  one  day  were 
allowed  to  arrest  two  entire  bands  of  strikers  on  the  march.2 
These  are  two  instances  taken  at  random,  and  even  these  are 
unnecessary.  For  I  am  conscious  of  "  bringing  coals  to  New- 
castle "  when  I  set  myself  to  work  to  show  a  body  of  miners 
who  have  been  through  the  late  strike  that  their  policy  in 
that  struggle  was  one  of  patient  endurance  and  strict  observ- 
ance of  the  law. 

I  have  said  that  violent  outbreaks  did  occur.  The  only  won- 
der is  —  and  a  great  credit  to  the  strikers  it  must  be  —  that 
riots  and  irregularities  were  so  distinctly  the  exception.  We 
could  have  no  better  example  of  the  local  and  unauthorized 
character  of  resort  to  force,  than  the  conduct  of  the  strike  in 
the  Hazelton  region.  There  the  strike  began  in  trouble,  in 
the  shortsighted  policy  of  petty  lawlessness,  and  finally  cul- 
minated in  tragedy.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  men  whom 
the  strikers  recognized  as  their  leaders  countenanced  any  dis- 
honorable action.  They  took  full  as  many  precautions  as 
elsewhere.  But  when  the  men  themselves  allowed  their 
bitterness  of  feeling  to  gain  so  far  the  mastery  that  they 
assaulted  and  beat  a  company  official,  as  they  did  Superin- 
tendent Jones,  the  sixteenth  of  August,  on  the  highway  be- 
tween Andendried  and  MacAdoo;8  when  they  beat  insensible 

1  Philadelphia  Press,  August  19.  2  Idem,  October  29. 

3  Philadelphia  Ledger,  August  17. 


546  APPENDIX 

a  man  who  continued  to  work  ; l  and  by  riotous  force  drove 
men  from  work,  as  they  did  August  the  twenty-seventh 
at  the  Beaver  Meadow  collieries  and  at  Milnesville  j1  they 
simply  showed  that  they  were  not  altogether  to  be  trusted  to 
carry  on  their  part  of  the  controversy  in  a  wise  and  manly 
fashion.  In  jeopardizing  the  safety  and  liberties  of  other 
people  they  not  only  put  themselves  in  the  wrong,  but  they 
went  some  distance  to  throw  reproach  upon  the  whole  move- 
ment, which  had  been  marked  elsewhere  by  so  much  self- 
restraint  and  good  sense. 

The  inevitable  result  followed.  Marching  upon  the  high- 
way, when  it  led  to  such  violence,  became  dangerous  to  the 
public  peace  ;  and  it  became  the  duty  of  the  sheriff,  as  pro- 
tector of  life  and  property  and  the  inalienable  right  of  work- 
ingmen  to  work,  to  organize  posses  of  deputies  and  patrol  the 
roads.  During  the  week  at  the  end  of  which  occurred  the 
shocking  clash  at  Lattimer,  Sheriff  Martin  met  and  dispersed 
miners  with  his  posse  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  and  Thursday. 
And  Thursday  they  had  previously  beaten  and  forced  reluctant 
recruits  to  join  their  ranks.2  One  day  this  week  the  sheriff  is 
said  to  have  met  single-handed  a  body  of  three  hundred  miners 
and  persuaded  them  not  to  march  through  Hazelton.8  Such 
was  the  situation  when,  on  the  evening  of  September  ninth, 
word  reached  the  sheriff  that  the  miners  at  the  Harwood 
colliery  in  secret  meeting  had  decided  to  march  in  force  next 
day  to  Lattimer  and  induce  the  miners  there  to  quit  work.4 

Apparently  there  was  not  the  slightest  intention  of  violence 
in  this  move  of  the  strikers.  They  passed  resolutions 5  against 
carrying  any  firearms  or  weapons,  and  the  few  next  day  who 
did  not  comply  were  disarmed  by  the  leaders  before  the 
march  began.6  It  was  their  manifest  intention  that  nothing 

1  Philadelphia  Press,  September  12. 

2  Harper's  Weekly,  October  2 ;  New  York  Sun,  September  13. 
8  Philadelphia  Press,  August  28. 

*  New  York  World,  September  13. 
6  New  York  Herald,  September  11. 
6  Philadelphia  Press,  September  12. 


APPENDIX  547 

more  than  an  organized  display  of  numbers  should  take  place. 
A  young  striker  from  the  Harwood  mines  asserted  in  an  inter- 
view with  a  World  reporter l  that  the  miners  had  been  invited 
by  the  men  at  Lattimer  to  march  over  and  thus  give  them  a 
desired  excuse  for  quitting  work.  This  statement  of  John 
Eagler  is  not  corroborated  by  any  other  testimony  or  inter- 
views, and  it  is  certainly  true  that  the  Harwood  miners  and 
others  in  the  region  had  not  scrupled  at  excuses  for  closing 
down  the  collieries.  But  it  may  still  be  true  that  the  strikers 
had  some  understanding  with  the  Lattimer  men,  though  per- 
haps indefinite,  and  that,  had  they  been  able  to  pursue  their 
march,  the  Lattimer  men  would  have  thrown  down  their  picks 
willingly  and  joined  the  ranks. 

This  side  of  the  matter,  however,  did  not  reach  the  sheriff. 
He  knew  simply  that  men  were  at  work  at  Lattimer,  and 
that  the  Harwood  miners  proposed  to  call  them  out.  Accord- 
ingly he  continued  in  the  policy  he  had  been  following  for 
the  past  week  at  least,  which  not  even  those  who  denounced 
his  course  at  Lattimer  most  strongly  have  criticised,  and 
opposed  the  march  of  the  strikers  with  his  posse  of  deputies. 
The  encounter  occurred  at  West  Hazelton,2  before  the  Hazle 
mines.  Martin  told  the  strikers  he  could  not  allow  their 
advance  and  they  must  disperse.  The  men  protested  that 
they  meant  no  harm,  but  the  sheriff  insisted,  and  read  the 
Riot  Act.  This  reading  is  flatly  denied  by  young  John 
Eagler,  who,  as  he  spoke  English,  appears  to  have  volunteered 
his  services  here  as  spokesman.  Eagler 8  says  the  sheriff 
merely  pulled  a  paper  out  of  his  pocket,  laid  his  hand  on  it, 
saying :  "  This  is  my  proclamation,"  and  put  it  back  into  his 
pocket.  Here  again  Eagler  is  alone  in  his  assertion.  All 
other  reports  say  plainly  that  the  Act  was  read ;  and  witnesses 

1  New  York  World,  September  13  ;  New  York  Sun,  September  13. 

2  Boston  Herald,  New  York  Tribune,  Philadelphia  Press,  New  York 
Evening  Post,  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,   September  11 ;  New  York 
World,  September  13. 

3  New  York  World,  September  13. 


548  APPENDIX 

in  sympathy  with  the  marchers  and  denouncing  the  sheriff 
include  the  reading  in  their  versions.1  Eagler  2  again  says 
that,  on  being  asked,  the  sheriff  said  he  would  allow  two  men 
to  go  to  Lattimer.  "  Then  I  said  to  the  crowd,"  continues 
Eagler,  " '  Boys,  fall  in  two  by  two  and  we  will  continue  the 
march  I'"  To  attempt  to  put  such  a  construction  on  the 
sheriff's  concession  is  not  a  very  creditable  performance  for  a 
man  who  volunteered  to  lead  men  of  honest  purpose.  I  have 
done  my  best  to  get  at  the  real  facts  in  this  case,  —  no  easy 
task,  —  and  I  am  much  afraid  that  Eagler 's  version,  given 
full  two  days  after  the  occurrence,  is  in  many  places  too  good 
to  be  true.  For  instance,  he  says  that  when  the  deputies 
opened  fire  at  Lattimer 2  many  of  the  men  in  the  front  ranks 
could  not  believe  that  ball  and  shot  were  being  used.  It 
seemed  incredible  that  the  deputies  had  not  given  a  volley  of 
blank  cartridges,  and  it  was  only  when  Eagler  saw  men  all 
about  him  dropping  and  the  blood  flowing  that  he  made  up  his 
mind  to  run.  Now  if  I  had  been  in  the  front  ranks  of  the 
unfortunate  strikers  when  the  shots  came,  I  cannot  honestly 
conceive  of  spending  any  time  in  speculation  on  the  prob- 
ability of  the  cartridges  being  blank  ;  and  in  no  other  accounts 
have  I  noticed  any  mention  of  the  men  hesitatiijg  in  taking 
to  the  woods  as  fast  as  their  legs  could  carry  them. 

If  I  do  Eagler  injustice,  I  hope  to  be  put  right  in  the 
matter.  But,  as  it  is,  I  am  forced  to  consider  his  version  an 
unsupported  assertion,  as  the  rest  of  the  testimony  is  unani- 
mous on  the  reading  of  the  Riot  Act.  After  this  you  all 
know  in  the  main  what  occurred,  although  accounts  differ 
widely  in  minor  details.  The  deputies  broke  up  the  forma- 
tion of  the  strikers  in  quite  a  sharp  tussle,  during  which  two 
of  the  leaders  were  struck  with  the  butts  of  the  deputies' 
Winchester  rifles  and  arrested.8  Some  time  after  the  strikers 

1  Philadelphia  Press,  September  11,  12. 

2  New  York  World,  September  13. 

8  Philadelphia  Press,  September  11 ;  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger, 
September  11. 


APPENDIX  549 

had  been  dispersed,  news  was  brought  to  Martin  that  they 
had  re-formed  on  the  highway  and  were  marching  to  Lattimer. 
He  put  his  deputies  aboard  a  trolley  car  and  had  them  carried 
to  Lattimer,  where  he  lined  them  up  along  a  fence  before  the 
coal  company's  property  at  the  edge  of  the  village.  When 
the  strikers  approached,  he  stepped  out  some  distance  before 
the  line  of  deputies  to  meet  them,  ordered  them  again  to  dis- 
perse, addressed  them,  and  read  the  Biot  Act.  The  men 
crowded  about  him.  They  insisted  they  were  not  violating  the 
law  and  should  be  allowed  to  proceed.  Martin,  revolver  in 
hand,  attempted  to  put  two  men  under  arrest.  There  was  an 
impulse  shown,  especially  by  those  in  the  rear,  to  push  for- 
ward, and  while  the  jostling  and  scuffling  was  in  progress  the 
command  to  fire  was  given,  with  instantaneous  effect. 

The  intense  spirit  of  anger  in  Hazelton  gathered  to  a  head 
at  night  in  an  indignation  meeting  at  which  resolutions  were 
adopted  denouncing  the  sheriff.1  In  MacAdoo2  feeling  ran 
high  enough  for  a  riot,  during  which,  in  a  search  for  Superin- 
tendent Jones,  his  house  was  ransacked:  The  press  in  large 
part  followed  the  popular  feeling.  Bloodshed  and  the  sights 
of  suffering  put  the  region  in  a  quiver  of  wrath,  which  easily 
found  its  way  into  the  columns  of  the  morning  journals. 
And  there  certainly  was  good  cause  for  indignation.  The 
error  this  excitement  drew  men  into  could  hardly  in  human 
nature  have  been  avoided.  But  to-day  while  our  sympathies 
are  still  alive  for  those  who  suffered,  the  wounds  to  our  sense 
of  justice  are  sufficiently  healed  to  allow  us  to  weigh  this 
question  in  its  full  seriousness  without  prejudice.  It  will 
not  do  to  repeat  mistakes  made  when  the  matter  was  fresh  in 
our  displeasure.  Every  one  said  at  the  time  :  "  It  was  an  error 
in  judgment  caused  by  the  incomprehensible  haste  or  malice 
of  the  sheriff."  In  this  very  verdict  did  they  not  with  haste, 
perhaps  comprehensible  but  certainly  not  warrantable,  pass 
judgment  on  the  sheriff,  and  possibly  a  judgment  in  erroj  ? 

1  New  York  Herald,  September  11. 

2  Philadelphia  Press,  September  11,  12. 


550  APPENDIX 

In  considering  the  justification  of  the  actions  of  an  officer 
of  the  law  it  is  of  course  impossible  entirely  to  disregard  the 
legal  aspects  of  the  case.  But  they  can  be  disregarded  in 
some  part,  and  I  propose  in  great  measure  to  disregard  them. 
First,  because  I  am  not  a  lawyer  and  could  not  handle  the 
technical  complexities  of  the  sheriff's  guilt  or  innocence, 
though  I  wished  to,  and  also  because  you  are  not  a  jury  and 
are  not  to  be  burdened  with  the  responsibilities  of  delicate 
legal  distinctions.  But  yet  we  are  each  in  himself  counsel, 
judge,  and  jury,  and  we  sit  in  constant  session  on  the  actions 
of  our  fellows.  Sometimes  our  verdicts  are  just  and  reached 
with  patience.  More  often,  perhaps,  they  are  returned  in 
haste  and  bias.  But  for  good  cause  we  are  always  ready  to 
reverse  them.  It  is  conceivable  that  a  public  servant  may  be 
acquitted  in  the  courts  of  law,  though  before  these  private 
tribunals  he  be  found  guilty.  Technically  he  may  have  dis- 
charged his  duties,  though  in  the  light  of  public  expediency 
his  measures  may  have  seemed  unnecessarily  harsh.  As  he 
may  thus  fail  twice,  it  would  appear  that  the  secondary  hear- 
ing should  be  all  the  more  considerately  given.  Strangely 
enough,  however,  he  is  far  more  likely  to  be  unfairly  treated 
by  the  public  than  by  the  laws. 

We  judge  this  sheriff  in  our  own  fashion  on  the  discharge 
of  his  duties.  These  are  laid  down  by  the  law.  They  con- 
stitute the  legal  aspect  of  the  case,  and,  though  we  are 
doubtless  more  or  less  familiar  with  them,  it  will  aid  our  ver- 
dict to  review  them.  In  times  of  emergency  and  possibility 
of  violence  the  sheriff,  as  head  of  the  county,  is  first  police- 
man. If  he  thinks  it  necessary  he  may  call  upon  citizens 
to  serve  as  his  deputies,  taking  arms  and  acting  under  his 
authority.  Such  a  posse  he  uses  to  protect  property  and  life  ; 
in  the  case  of  strikes,  even  to  protect  men  who  remain  peace- 
ably at  work  from  violent  interference..  He  is  duty  bound  to 
put  a  stop  to  violence,  or,  if  possible,  to  prevent  its  occurrence. 
And  in  the  use  of  his  powers  for  this  purpose  he  must  be  the 
judge  of  the  likelihood  of  disturbance.  When  in  his  opinion 


APPENDIX  551 

marches  of  strikers  are  likely  to  lead  to  violence,  he  is  bound 
to  oppose  them  as  a  menace  to  the  public  peace.  As  in  all 
cases  of  unlawful  assemblages,  he  must  read  the  Riot  Act, 
ordering  them  to  disperse.  If  they  refuse,  he  may  put  them 
under  arrest.  Should  they  resist  with  violence  his  arrest  or 
opposition  to  their  progress,  he  must  meet  their  resistance 
with  force  if  necessary.1  In  the  case  of  Martin,  bearing  these 
duties  in  mind,  we  are  to  determine  whether  conditions  existed 
which  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  act;  and  if  so  whether, 
as  has  been  alleged,  he  acted  in  haste  or  with  malicious  intent. 
It  he  should  appear  to  have  been  bound  by  duty  to  act  and 
not  to  have  behaved  in  haste  or  malice,  we  are  surely  ready  to 
acquit  him  as  justified. 

The  suspicion  of  malice  has  been  suggested  perhaps  by  the 
apparently  unnecessary  continuousness  of  the  deputies'  volley. 
They  seem  to  have  kept  up  firing  upon  the  miners  after  these 
started  to  run,2  and  this  perhaps  more  than  anything  else  has 
served  to  bring  them  hasty  condemnation.  It  would  seem  to 
add  another  complexity  to  the  case.  But  there  is  no  need  for 
confusing  two  issues.  The  first  question  is  whether  the  firing 
was  justified  in  any  way.  If  not,  its  extent  does  not  need  to 
be  considered.  The  sheriff  and  his  deputies  being  once  in  the 
wrong  would  only  have  gone  deeper  in.  If  the  resort  to  a 
volley  was  called  for  by  actual  conditions,  then  the  prolonga- 
tion of  the  volley  may  or  may  not  have  been  justifiable,  and 
requires  separate  consideration. 

We  know  the  circumstances  of  the  strikers7  march  to  Latti- 
rner,  and  their  previous  repulse  at  West  Hazelton.  We  have 
seen  that  the  sheriff  opposed  this  march  precisely  as  he  had 
opposed  other  marches  during  the  week.  But  we  question 
whether,  when  he  had  met  the  strikers,  read  the  Riot  Act, 

1  Bouvier.     Law   Dictionary.     Dalton.     Sheriff,    p.  355.     New  York 
Herald,  September  12  (opinions  of  sheriffs).     Philadelphia  Press,  Octo- 
ber 29  (Judge  Lynch's  instructions  to  Grand  Jury).     Idem,  August  20 
(Sheriff  'Lowry). 

2  New  York  Herald,  Philadelphia  Press,  September  11. 


552  APPENDIX 

and  attempted  to  disperse  them,  he  should  have  resorted  to 
force.  To  judge  of  this,  we  must  recall  his  duties  as  sheriff, 
and  therein  we  see  his  order  to  fire  was  justified  only  if  the 
strikers  resisted  with  violence.  Nor  does  even  this  quite 
settle  the  matter  ;  for,  if  the  evidence  shows  that  such  vio- 
lent resistance  was  offered,  we  have  still  to  inquire  whether 
he  gave  the  order  hastily,  too  soon,  or  with  malicious  intent. 

All  manner  of  reports  have  been  published  about  the  con- 
duct of  the  strikers.  They  are  described  as  infuriated  in 
some  accounts,  as  entirely  docile  and  unresisting  in  others. 
When  such  conflicting  views  are  set  forth  in  the  daily  press 
as  the  facts  in  the  case,  we  must  discriminate,  or  give  up  the 
task  entirely.  Many  of  these  reports,  moreover,  are  merely 
hearsay  on  record  and  of  little  value  as  testimony.  The  gen- 
eral drift  of  them  seems  to  be  that  the  strikers  crowded 
about  the  sheriff  while  he  read  the  Eiot  Act,  pushing  and 
jostling  him  to  and  fro.  This  is  variously  explained  as 
evincing  riotous  advance  or  anxiety  to  hear  the  sheriff.  All 
accounts  say  the  sheriff,  after  a  somewhat  animated  conver- 
sation with  the  men,  attempted  to  arrest  two  of  thenu  Then 
came  the  "inexplicable"  volley  about  which  reports  are  so 
inexplicably  muddled. 

So  much  for  the  broad  and  indefinite  assertions  of  the  gen- 
eral reports.  The  direct  testimony  is  more  limited,  but 
is  somewhat  more  to  the  point.  The  sheriff's  use  of  his 
revolver  was  a  source  of  considerable  difference  of  opinion. 
An  eyewitness  is  reported  in  the  Philadelphia  Press  of  Sep- 
tember eleventh  as  saying  :  "  The  sheriff  told  them  [strikers 
who  advanced  upon  him]  to  stand  back,  and  then  he  pulled 
his  revolver.  The  revolver  was  taken  from  the  sheriff's 
hands  by  several  of  the  miners."  The  name  of  this  eye- 
witness is  withheld  "for  obvious  reasons,  considering  the 
intense  divided  feeling  in  the  community." l  The  feeling 
was  obvious  enough,  but  a  witness  lacking  all  name  and 

1  Philadelphia  Press,  September  11. 


APPENDIX  553 

embodiment  is  first  cousin  to  hearsay.  John  Eagler's  l  ver- 
sion is  that  the  sheriff  used  his  revolver  to  cover  the  man  he 
was  arresting,  who,  perhaps  for  obvious  reasons,  objected  to 
having  his  heart  aimed  at,  and  gently  pushed  the  revolver 
aside.  On  the  witness  stand,  September  twenty-first,  Jona- 
than Lichensberger,2  a  Hazelton  contractor,  who  witnessed 
the  encounter,  said,  "After  reading  the  proclamation  he  [the 
sheriff]  ordered  the  crowd  to  go  back.  Then  they  had  a 
scuffle  with  him.  He  drew  his  revolver,  but  some  one 
grabbed  his  wrist  and  held  up  his  hand  so  he  could  not  do 
anything."  Perhaps  we  may  safely  say  that  the  sheriff  tried 
to  make  an  impression  with  the  display  of  his  revolver,  and 
the  strikers  manifested  a  disinclination  to  be  covered  there- 
with. If  we  look  the  matter  squarely  in  the  face,  we  cannot 
but  see  that  the  strikers  resisted  arrest  by  the  sheriff.  It  is 
idle  to  say  they  did  not  understand  his  authority.  He  had 
been  active  in  the  region  for  a  week,  his  proclamations  had 
been  printed  in  the  newspapers,8  a  line  of  armed  deputies 
was  not  fifty  yards  4  behind  him,  and  he  had  opposed  these 
same  men  only  a  little  while  before  at  West  Hazelton,  where 
they  had  finally  yielded  to  his  authority,  and  to  the  drastic 
measures  of  his  deputies.  The  purpose  of  these  miners  in 
going  to  the  Lattimer  mines  may  have  been  perfectly  honor- 
able, but  in  the  process  they  defied  the  sheriff  and  resisted 
his  efforts  to  put  them  under  arrest.  Such  conduct  makes 
a  poor  comparison  with  the  dignified  showing  of  the  other 
miners  who  under  arbitrary  restraint  respected  the  law  and 
submitted  to  the  sheriff  hundreds  at  a  time.  Orderly  method 
is  a  stroke  of  wisdom,  but  such  foolhardy  defiance  of  the  law 
as  this  never  wins  in  the  end. 

It  seems  to  be  agreed  generally  that  the  volley  was  pre- 
ceded by  two  or  three  single  shots.     Some  reports  said  that 

1  New  York  World,  September  13. 

2  Philadelphia  Ledger,  September  22. 
8  New  York  Sun,  September  13. 

4  Philadelphia  Press,  September  11. 


554  APPENDIX 

the  strikers  were  put  to  rout  by  these,  only  to  have  the  hor- 
rible volley  poured  into  their  backs.  A  reporter,  writing 
September  eleventh,  said l  "  all  except  five  of  the  strikers 
were  shot  while  they  were  trying  to  escape.  Their  wounds 
are  in  their  backs."  The  reporter  goes  on  to  say  that  he  saw 
the  wounds  himself.  Unfortunately  he  makes  no  claim  to  be 
a  competent  judge  of  gunshot  wounds,  and  a  bullet  from  a 
rifle  at  such  close  range  might  easily  go  through  a  man's 
body,  coming  out  at  the  back.  Dr.  Keller 2  of  the  Hazelton 
hospital  said  on  this  point,  "  Of  the  thirty-nine  men  who  are 
in  this  hospital  there  are  only  twelve  whose  wounds  could 
possibly  have  been  made  by  shooting  in  the  back.  Of  these 
twelve  the  wounds  of  several  are  not  as  deep  as  'they  would 
have  been  if  they  had  been  hit  by  a  bullet  direct  from  a  gun. 
It  is  very  likely  that  these  men  were  struck  by  bullets  that 
passed  through  the  bodies  of  other  men.  The  force  of  the 
bullet,  it  can  be  fairly  estimated,  would  be  such  as  to  go 
through  a  man's  body,  if  the  body  was  the  first  object  with 
which  it  came  in  contact." 

If  the  men  were  not  entirely  in  flight  when  the  volley 
was  discharged,  were  they  at  a  stand  facing  the  deputies  ? 
No  end  again  of  sweeping  statements.  Personally,  I  have 
wearied  of  these  sweeping  statements.  They  say  everything 
and  leave  no  impression  of  having  established  anything. 
Let  us  take  the  testimony  of  a  witness  and  a  participant. 
Charles  Guscott,  principal  of  the  Lattimer  Grammar  School, 
witnessed  the  shooting, — which  he  denounced  as  unprovoked 
and  cold-blooded  murder,  —  from  the  porch  of  the  school- 
house,  three  hundred  yards  from  where  the  deputies  took 
their  stand.  "  I  saw  the  sheriff  talking  vigorously  to  them,"' 
he  said,  "and  then  he  read  the  Eiot  Act.  The  strikers 
crowded  around  him  to  the  number  of  at  least  a  hundred. 
Finally,  I  saw  him  pushed  aside  into  the  ditch  at  the  side  of 
the  road,  and  then  the  strikers  .  .  .  swept  toward  Lattimer, 

1  New  York  Herald,  September  12. 

2  New  York  Sun,  September  13. 


APPENDIX  555 

and  in  a  minute  or  two  were  in  front  of  the  deputies.7' l  Gus- 
cott  told  the  same  version  on  the  witness  stand  later.2  John 
Eagler  says  the  men  behind  cried,  "Go  on;  go  on!"  when 
the  sheriff  opposed  them,  and  crowded  forward.8  Finally, 

an  intelligent  Hungarian  from  Mt.  Pleasant,"  Martin  K-oski, 
who  was  shot  in  the  arm,  gave  out  this  laconic  version:4 

We  were  going  along  the  road  to  Lattimer,  and  the  depu- 
ties were  lined  across  the  road  barring  our  progress.  We 
;ried  to  get  through  them  and  did  not  attempt  to  hit  or  molest 
them,  when  they  fired  upon  us.  We  ran,  but  they  kept  on 
shooting  on  us  while  we  ran.  It  is  all  their  fault." 

This  has  been  the  popular  verdict.  The  deputies  opposed 
;he  strikers  t\?ice,  the  last  time  lined  up  to  defend  the  men 
working  at  the  Lattimer  mines.  Judging  from  the  acts  of 
violence  which  unfortunately  had  not  been  uncommon  for  some 
days  in  the  vicinity,  they  thought  the  men  at  work  were  in 
immediate  danger  of  intimidation  and  perhaps  assault.  The 
sheriff  met  the  strikers  fifty  yards  before  his  line,  halted 
;hem,  expostulated  with  them,  read  them  the  Riot  Act,  when 
that  availed  nothing  attempted  to  put  two  under  arrest, 
and  -only  when  they  pushed  him  aside  and  swept  onward, 
ordered  his  deputies  to  fire.  And  yet  we  say,  "  It  is  all  their 
fault." 

If  these  men  were  on  a  peaceful  errand,  why  did  they 
bry  to  get  through  the  deputies  ?  Why  did  they  resist  the 
sheriff's  arrest  with  turbulence  ? 

Shall  we  think  the  sheriff  hasty  in  giving  the  command  ? 
Be  tried  every  means,  —  orders,  proclamations,  arguments, 
;he  moral  effect  of  arrests,  —  and  found  himself  unable  to 
influence  these  men.  All  through  the  week  marchers  had 
lispersed  at  his  orders.  Once  he  had  coped  with  a  crowd 
>f  three  hundred,  single-handed.  But  these  men  with  the 

1  New  York  Herald,  September  12. 

2  Philadelphia  Ledger,  September  22. 

3  New  York  World,  September  13. 

4  Philadelphia  Press,  September  11 ;  Philadelphia  Ledger,  September  II, 


556  APPENDIX 

avowed  intention  of  having  the  men  at  Lattimer  quit  work< 
got  beyond  his  control.  He  was  duty  bound  to  protect  the* 
men  at  Lattimer,  for  he  had  certainly  no  assurance  that  the 
marchers  would  use  them  more  gently  than  they  did  an  officer' 
of  the  law.  And  Martin  knew  that  if  the  strikers  were  givem 
the  upper  hand  they  would  not  be  powerless  against  the^ 
deputies.  Earlier  in  the  strike,  at  Coffeen,  Illinois,1  strikers^ 
had  managed  to  throw  the  deputy  sheriffs  aside  and  invade 
the  town.  Nearer  home,  at  Hazelton,  on  August  twenty- 
seventh,  the  Beaver  Meadow  miners  brushed  aside  the  "coal, 
and  iron  police,"  and  drove  carpenters  and  blacksmiths  fromi 
work.2  Here  the  Harwood  miners  had  twice  confronted  the 
sheriff  and  now  brushed  him  aside.  The  deputies  could  nott 
act  without  orders,  and  the  command  was  given. 

In  what  stage  of  the  sheriff's  patient  forbearance,  in  hist- 
arguments  to  persuade  the  men  to  be  reasonable,  in  hiai 
endeavors  to  awe  them  into  obedience,  do  we  see  his  malice; 
cropping  out  ?  There  had  been  an  excellent  chance  to  grat- 
ify malice  at  the  Hazle  workings,  which  the  sheriff  appearai 
to  have  let  slip.  But  it  is  ridiculous  to  talk  of  his  giving! 
the  order  through  malice.  If  malice  had  prompted  him  he 
would  never  have  thought  of  putting  himself  in  danger.! 
When  the  command  to  fire  was  given,  Martin  was  some  dis- 
tance in  front  of  his  deputies,  in  among  the  strikers,  and! 
stood  full  as  good  a  chance  as  any  of  them  of  being  killed.8! 

It  has  been  suggested4  by  London  papers  that  we  should j 
have  less  bloodshed  if  we  had  a  well-organized   and   morel 
complete  police  force  to  take  charge  of  entire  regions  where! 
strikes   might  happen   to  occur.     The  point  is  well  taken. I 
Police  are   trained  officers  of   the   law,   constantly  used  to 
handling  bodies  of  men  and  estimating  the  temper  of  crowds. 
By  dint  of  long  practice  they  acquire  patience  in  dealing! 

1  Philadelphia  Press,  August  18. 

2  Idem,  August  28. 

8  Idem,  etc.,  September  11. 
4  Spectator,  September  18. 


APPENDIX  557 

with  opposition.  Deputy  sheriffs  on  the  other  hand  are 
inexperienced,  often  in  the  eastern  states  even  unused  to 
firearms.  The  opposition  of  a  crowd  goes  far  toward  putting 
their  inner  selves  in  a  panic, -and  when  an  outbreak  comes 
they  are  far  more  reckless  in  putting  it  down  than  are  trained 
police  or  soldiers.  In  England  in  the  thirties  and  forties 
they  had  many  such  industrial  misfortunes  as  the  tragedy  at 
Lattimer,  but  since  the  perfecting  of  their  constabulary  such 
occurrences  have  been  fewer.  The  writer  in  the  Spectator  pre- 
dicts that  the  United  States  will  soon  travel  the  same  satis- 
factory road,  to  the  mutual  advantage  of  labor  and  capital. 

Until  we  do,  however,  if  our  deputies  are  by  lack  of  train- 
ing and  discipline  nighty  and  unsteady,  it  is  through  no  fault 
of  theirs.  The  evil  lies  in  the  system.  If,  when  it  comes  to 
the  point  of  shooting,  their  cooler  judgment  is  shaken  and 
they  continue  longer  than  in  thinking  the  matter  over  after- 
wards we  deem  advisable,  longer  perhaps  than  trained  sol- 
diery would  have  persisted,  we  cannot  at  once  support  the 
system,  commit  ourselves  to  its  protection,  and  denounce  its 
administrators.  If  the  deputies  at  Lattimer  seem  to  have 
prolonged  their  volley  unnecessarily,  —  and  on  this  point  as 
on  so  many  others  accounts  disagree,  —  if  they  seem  to  have 
done  more  execution  than  needful,  we  must  remember  that 
they  were  under  a  severe  and  unusual  strain,  that  they  were 
doing  their  best  to  carry  out  the  commands  of  their  sheriff 
who  appeared  to  be  faring  ill  in  an  attempt  to  make  good 
the  law's  protection  over  peaceful  workmen. 

This  is  not  a  question  which  can  expect  a  hasty  decision. 
But  if  you  will  carefully  consider  the  evidence,  if  you  will 
not  blind  yourselves  to  the  ill-advised  course  of  the  marchers 
in  persistently  defying  the  law,  and  will  pass  judgment  fairly 
and  candidly  on  the  actions  of  the  officers  in  the  case,  you  will, 
I  feel  sure,  believe  that  Sheriff  Martin  and  his  deputies  were 
justified  in  shooting  on  the  miners  at  Lattimer. 


558  APPENDIX 

XXVIII 

A  GOOD  FOKENSIC 
Forensic  E 

Should  the  Elective  System  be  Introduced  in  all  Public  High 

Schools? 

The  contemporary  discussion  concerning  the  elective  system 
for  public  high  schools  suggests  the  exhortation  of  a  negro 
cab  driver.  Glad  of  the  lightning  which  showed  him  the  road, 
but  terrified  by  repeated  peals  of  thunder,  he  cried :  "  0  Lord, 
if  it's  all  the  same  to  you,  send  us  more  light  and  less  noise." 
It  is  only  witli  the  hope  of  revealing  some  light  on  this  prob- 
lem that  one  is  warranted  in  making  more  noise. 

For  nearly  a  century  the  elective  system  has  been  pushing 
its  way  into  our  colleges  and  schools.  In  1825  elective  courses 
were  offered  to  the  upper  classes  of  Harvard  College.  Since 
then  the  elective  principle  has  been  working  down  to  the 
lower  grades;  in  1846  to  the  Senior  and  Junior  classes  of 
Harvard  College,  in  1867  to  the  Sophomore  class,  in  1884  to 
the  Freshman  class.  The  influence  of  this  action  by  Harvard 
College  was  inevitably  to  send  the  elective  system  down  to 
the  upper  classes  of  secondary  schools ;  within  a  few  years  it 
has  reached  all  classes  in  the  public  high  schools  of  Boston 
and  other  cities.  Down,  down  it  has  gone  through  college, 
high  school,  and  grammar  school,  until,  as  Dean  Briggs  says, 
"  not  even  the  alphabet  can  stop  it." 

The  growth  of  this  free-choice  principle  —  fixed  quantity 
and  quality  of  work  with  variable  topic  —  has  no  doubt  been 
due  largely  to  the  growing  diversity  of  knowledge,  to  the 
breaking  down  of  the  old  ideal  of  the  scholar,  to  the  need  of 
specialization,  and  to  the  opening  of  educational  opportunities 
to  all  the  people.  Whatever  the  causes  may  be,  the  elective 
principle  is  established,  its  benefits  are  recognized,  and  all 


APPENDIX  559 

are  agreed  that  at  some  place  in  our  educational  system  the 
studies  should  be  wholly  elective.  But  at  what  point?  The 
question  is  pertinent  whether  in  escaping  the-  Scylla  of  total 
prescription  we  are  not  in  danger  of  being  wrecked  upon  the 
Charybdis  of  total  election. 

Whether  free  choice  should  begin  in  the  first  year  of  the 
public  high-school  course  is  a  question  concerning  which  there 
i  has  been  much  writing,  some  thinking,  and  a  little  scientific 
investigation.  Many  individual  opinions  have  been  given; 
bhe  arguments  on  each  side  have  been  partly  stated;  some 
Bvidence  has  been  presented,  usually  without  consideration 

its  full  bearing  on  all  phases  of  the  question ;  but  has  any 
3ne  sought  to  discover  the  truth  through  bringing  together 
3,11  the  arguments  on'  both  sides  and  viewing  them  in  the 
ight  of  facts  ?  I  have  found  no  such  attempt.  My  present 
purpose  is  to  make  that  attempt,  first  of  all  through  reducing 
arguments  of  both  sides  to  their  lowest  terms,  in  order 
to  see  in  brief  compass  just  what  are  the  vital  differences  .of 
opinion ;  and,  second,  through  considering  those  issues  one 
one  in  connection  with  the  investigations  I  have  made 
joncerning  the  working  of  the  elective  system  in  the  United 
States. 

First,  then,  what  is  said  against  the  elective  system  for 
public  high  schools.  The  arguments  may  be  considered  con- 
veniently in  four  main  divisions  :  the  first  concerning  the 
ibility  of  high-school  pupils  to  choose ;  the  second  concerning 
possible  compromises  between  complete  election  and  complete 
prescription ;  the  third  concerning  the  effect  of  each  system 

teachers  and  principals  ;  the  fourth  concerning  the  relative 
noral  worth  of  the  old  system  of  prescription  and  the  new 
system  of  election. 

The  first  of  these  arguments  contends  that  those  in  charge 
)f  the  schools  can  choose  better  for  all  than  can  each  indi- 
vidual pupil  for  himself.  This  is  held  to  be  true  for  three 
reasons  :  there  are  certain  studies  which  are  essential  for  all 
pupils,  of  which  Latin,  algebra,  geometry,  and  English  are 


560  APPENDIX 

often  urged ;  pupils  will  not  of  their  own  choice  elect  these 
necessary  studies ;  pupils  will  choose  foolishly,  for  they  will 
elect  easy  courses,  or  those  for  which  they  are  not  prepared, 
or  those  taught  by  favorite  teachers,  or  those  of  little  value, 
or  disconnected  courses. 

As  a  second  main  argument,  two  compromises  are  proposed, 
either  of  which  is  held  to  be  superior  to  the  elective  system 
in  its  entirety.  Since  there  are  certain  studies  which  con- 
stitute an  essential  foundation,  and  since  pupils,  left  to  their 
own  choice,  will  neglect  these  studies,  a  programme  of  partial 
prescription  or  a  group  system  seems  to  many  people  far 
better  than  "  a  frolic  of  unbridled  fancy."  Such  is  the  name 
applied  to  the  elective  idea  by  an  extreme  opponent  who 
refuses  to  call  it  a  "system." 

Of  those  who  favor  partial  prescription,  some  would  have 
the  greater  part  of  school  work  required  and  allow  the  pupil 
to  choose  only  the  "  fringe."  Others  would  establish  a  system 
of  restricted  choice,  requiring  the  pupil  to  take  at  least  one 
study  from  each  of  the  great  divisions  of  human  knowledge 
—  say  language,  history,  mathematics,  and  science.  The  other 
suggested  compromise,  called  the  group  system,  offers  several 
complete  programmes  of  studies,  one  of  which  the  pupil  must 
elect,  but  the  studies  within  each  group  are  wholly  prescribed. 
The  argument  in  favor  of  this  system  is  that  each  pupil, 
whether  preparing  for  college,  for  technical  school,  or  for 
business  —  whether  wishing  a  classical,  scientific,  or  com- 
mercial course  —  can  elect  one  well-planned  group  of  related 
studies.  Many  believe  that  thus  the  benefits  of  the  elective 
system  are  secured  and  its  evils  eliminated. 

A  third  argument  opposed  to  the  elective  system  concerns 
teachers  and  principals.  It  is  held  that  this  system  requires 
abler,  more  enthusiastic  teachers,  more  competent  and  sym- 
pathetic principals,  stronger  men  and  women ;  that,  further, 
the  system  demands  of  them  more  work.  On  this  point, 
other  friends  of  prescribed  study  urge  that  the  free-choice 
system  is  a  device  to  evade  the  most  difficult  work  of  teaching, 


APPENDIX  561 

—  a  lazy,  laissez-faire  policy ;  for  it  tends  to  relieve  teachers 
of  the  very  pupils  whom  they  have  most  difficulty  in  forcing 
through  a  prescribed  curriculum. 

A  fourth  main  argument  is  that  the  prescribed  system  is 
of  greater  moral  worth.  "  What  a  boy  likes/'  it  is  said,  "  is 
not  always  best  for  him,"  and  "  backwardness  in  any  subject 
shows  the  desirability  of  more  training  at  just  that  point.7' 
The  drudgery  of  enforced  tasks  and  the  discipline  in  conquer- 
ing distasteful  subjects  is  more  valuable  than  any  training 
in  free  choice,  and  only  prescribed  work  cultivates  habits  of 
application,  thoroughness,  and  accuracy. 

These  four  objections  do  not  by  any  means  comprise  all 
that  has  been  said  against  the  elective  system.  The  argu- 
ments have  been  too  intricate  and  numerous,  have  wandered 
along  too  many  divergent  paths  to  be  gathered  into  four  folds. 
The  friends  of  the  fixed  curriculum  have  also  urged  that  most 
public  high  schools  are  too  limited  in  resources  —  in  teachers 
and  equipment — to  make  possible  a  programme  of  free  choice; 
that  there  are  dangers  of  superficiality  in  the  so-called 
"  enriching  "  and  "  broadening'7  of  lower-school  programmes  ; 
that  absolutely  unrestricted  choice  is  impossible,  since  there 
are  so  many  hindrances  to  its  free  play ;  that  the  elective 
system  throws  upon  busy  parents  an  added  responsibility,  one 
wholly  assumed  by  school  authorities  under  the  old  fixed 
plan ;  that  the  elective  system  cannot  put  a  stop  to  all 
educational  wastes. 

Indeed,  so  many  have  been  the  invectives  against  the 
elective  system,  so  diverse  have  been  the  attacks,  that  it  is 
no  simple  matter  to  extricate  the  specific  objections.  As  far 
as  I  know,  however,  all  the  arguments  which  have  been 
advanced  seriously  are  now  before  us  in  five  divisions.  The 
necessity  of  such  an  arbitrary  arrangement,  and  the  reason 
why  I  have  grouped  the  last  six  contentions  in  a  fifth  divi- 
sion, will  become  clear  through  an  examination  of  the  other 
side  —  of  the  arguments  which  favor  complete  freedom  of 
choice  in  all  our  public  high  schools. 


562 


APPENDIX 


The  arguments  adduced  in  support  of  the  elective  system 
may  be  considered  in  six  groups,  the  first  four  of  which  will 
be  seen  to  correspond  with  the  first  four  opposing  arguments 
stated  above :  first,  those  concerning  the  relative  ability  of 
the  individual  to  choose  for  himself  and  the  ability  of  the 
school  authorities  to  choose  for  all ;  secondly,  concerning  the 
proposed  substitutes  for  complete  election;  thirdly,  concern- 
ing the  effect  of  each  system  on  teachers  and  principals; 
fourthly,  concerning  the  relative  moral  worth  of  the  two 
systems  ;  fifthly,  concerning  the  interest  of  pupils  in  their 
work ;  and  lastly,  concerning  several  particular  needs  of 
public  high-school  education  in  the  United  States. 

The  first  argument  in  this  order  is  that  throughout  the 
United  States  each  high-school  pupil  is  better  able  to  choose 
for  himself  than  are  school  authorities  for  all  alike.  This  is 
held  true  for  three  reasons :  there  are  no  studies  which  are 
essential  for  all  pupils  ;  few  students  omit  the  subjects  most 
commonly  defended  by  advocates  of  fixed  courses ;  there  are 
many  natural  safeguards  which  together  inhibit  most  of  the 
mistakes  of  choice  feared  by  the  opponents  of  the  elective 
system. 

The  second  argument  holds  that  no  other  plan  is  so  satis- 
factory as  complete  election.  The  group  system  —  when  its 
only  distinct  feature  is  preserved  —  is  too  rigid  to  provide  for 
individual  needs,  and  is  an  attempt  to  enforce  specialization. 
Nor  is  any  system  of  partial  choice  so  satisfactory  as  complete 
election.  A  few  options  will  not  give  the  necessary  advan- 
tages. Furthermore,  elective  and  prescribed  work  side  by 
side  are  incompatible.  Finally,  a  partially  elective  plan  will 
not  do,  for  free  choice  should  be  given  in  the  first  year  of 
high  school,  that  the  opportunities  may  attract  grammar- 
school  graduates  who  are  deciding  whether  to  enter  the  high 
school ;  free  choice  should  come  at  this  time,  when  the  inevi- 
table errors  of  training  in  choice  are  least  harmful. 

A  third  argument  is  that,  under  the  elective  system, 
teachers  and  principals  are  relieved  of  the  most  disheartening 


APPENDIX  563 

kind  of  work,  and  inspired  with  a  more  sympathetic  and 
enthusiastic  attitude  toward  their  work  and  their  pupils. 

A  fourth  is  the  moral  argument.  The  elective  principle  is 
considered  strongest  for  building  character,  because  it  honors 
the  will,  trains  in  choice,  removes  the  dangers  of  habitual 
dependence,  lessens  cheating,  helps  to  break  the  demoralizing 
educational  "  lock-step,"  and  aids  in  developing  good  citizens. 
Furthermore,  in  reply  to  a  common  objection,  the  friends  of 
election  say  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  drudgery,  and  the 
only  kind  which  has  moral  strength  is  as  surely  found  where 
all  studies  are  elective  as  where  all  are  prescribed. 

Closely  related  to  the  question  of  moral  worth  is  a  fifth 
point  :  the  elective  system  arouses  the  interest,  willingness, 
and  enthusiasm  of  pupils,  as  no  other  system  can,  whereas 
prescription  makes  many  pupils  disparage  the  very  studies 
which  it  seeks  to  dignify. 

A  sixth  group  of  arguments  in  favor  of  the  new  education 
deals  with  several  present  needs  of  public  high  schools  in  the 
United  States,  which,  it  is  held,  only  the  elective  system  can 
satisfy.  One  of  these  is  the  need  of  arousing  the  interest  of 
parents,  and  thus  securing  more  sympathetic  cooperation  of 
home  and  school.  Another  is  the  need  of  a  system  by  which 
our  school  buildings  can  be  used  more  hours  of  each  day  and 
thus  be  made  to  accommodate  more  pupils.  A  third  is  the 
necessity  in  a  democratic  community  of  recognizing  the  wide 
diversity  in  the  needs  of  pupils  and  thus  providing  for  all 
classes  of  society.  A  fourth  is  the  need  of  increasing  the  per- 
centage of  the  population  that  secures  a  high-school  education, 
both  by  attracting  more  pupils  and  by  keeping  them  longer 
in  school.  Such  present  demands,  which  the  people  right- 
fully make  of  their  schools,  no  prescribed  curricula  can  so 
nearly  satisfy  as  the  plan  of  complete  free  choice. 

Here,  then,  are  the  arguments  of  both  sides,  stripped  of  all 
their  finery  and  set  side  by  side  for.  the  sake  of  comparison. 
It  is  clear  that  the  two  sides  meet  with  a  definite  clash  on 
the  first  four  issues. 


564  APPENDIX 

The  questions,  therefore,  which  must  be  decided,  the  issues 
on  which  the  advocates  of  the  new  system  must  win  or  lose 
their  case,  are  these  four  :  First,  whether  each  pupil  can 
choose  better  for  himself  or  school  authorities  for  all ;  this  in 
turn  depends  on  whether  there  is  a  common  ground  essential 
for  all  pupils;  whether  with  freedom  of  choice  pupils  will 
avoid  this  common  ground;  whether  there  are  a  sufficient 
number  of  safeguards  to  prevent  unwise  choices.  Secondly, 
whether  the  group  system  or  any  system  of  partial  election 
has  sufficient  advantages  to  offset  those  of  the  elective  system. 
Thirdly,  which  plan  is  better  suited  to  secure  the  interest, 
sympathy,  effective  work,  and  happiness  of  teachers  and  prin- 
cipals. Fourthly,  whether  the  moral  benefits  of  drudgery, 
of  conquering  distasteful  subjects,  of  submitting  to  author- 
ity, acquiring  habits  of  persistence  and  accuracy,  which  are 
claimed  for  the  prescribed  system,  outweigh  the  moral  worth 
of  training  in  free  choice  which  is  claimed  for  the  elective 
system.  Such  are  the  four  main  issues. 

Above  and  beyond  these,  on  which  the  two  sides  clinch,  other 
arguments  are  advanced  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  What 
is  their  bearing?  If  they  are  beside  the  point,  we  can  discard 
them  at  once  ;  if  they  are  germane,  but  incontestable,  we  must 
keep  them  in  mind  as  truths  to  be  reckoned  with ;  but  in  any 
event,  since  they  have  all  been  brought  forward  repeatedly  in 
connection  with  this  subject,  we  must  give  them  fair  considera- 
tion. We  may  well  do  so  before  we  examine  the  main  issues. 

In  an  overlapping  group  we  included  the  objection  that  the 
majority  of  public  high  schools  are  too  limited  in  teaching 
force  and  equipment  to  introduce  elective  studies ;  and  another 
objection — the  danger  of  superficiality  in  the  so-called  enrich- 
ing and  broadening  of  lower-school  programmes.  These  two 
matters  are  continually  and  often  evasively  slipped  in  among 
the  arguments  against  elective  studies ;  but  if  this  bare,  per- 
haps wearisome,  analysis  of  the  question  serves  any  purpose, 
it  helps  to  make  clear  that  these  two  points  are  not  germane 
but  beyond  the  limits  of  the  present  subject. 


APPENDIX  565 

They  are  extraneous,  because,  as  regards  the  first  objection, 
it  is  obvious  that  schools  which  can  offer  only  one  complete 
course  are  not  concerned  with  the  matter  of  election ;  such 
schools  fall  beyond  the  scope  of  this  discussion  until  they 
are  able  to  extend  their  curricula.  Likewise,  concerning  the 
second  objection,  however  important  it  may  be  to  recognize  the 
possible  dangers  in  enriching  and  broadening  the  programmes 
of  the  lower  schools,  the  question  does  not  concern  the  election 
of  studies.  This  point  is  important.  If  there  are  any  subjects 
which  are  worthless,  out  of  place,  or  superficially  taught,  they 
are  so  whether  they  are  imposed  on  the  pupil  or  left  to  his 
choice.  The  real  fault  is  that  they  are  in  the  curriculum  at 
all.  These  two  matters,  therefore,  may  be  safely  banished  from 
thejeal  issues. 

The  arguments  against  the  elective  system  further  include 
two  contentions  :  first,  that  unrestricted  election  is  impossible, 
since  there  are  so  many  hindrances  to  its  free  play;  second, 
that  the  elective  system  throws  on  busy  parents  a  responsi- 
bility hitherto  wholly  assumed  by  the  schools.  Surely  these 
two  points  concern  us  vitally ;  but,  so  far  as  I  know,  they  are 
admitted  by  everybody.  So  much  is  common  ground.  The 
last  objection  mentioned  above — a  kind  always  urged  against 
any  reform,  namely,  that  the  new  system  will  not  put  a  stop 
to  all  educational  wastes  —  is  conceded  by  all  its  defenders. 

There  remain,  beyond  the  clash  of  opinion  on  this  question, 
the  two  additional  arguments  already  outlined  in  favor  of 
the  elective  principle;  namely,  that  it  arouses  the  interest 
of  pupils  as  no  other  system  can,  and  that  it  responds  more 
effectively  than  any  other  plan  to  several  important  needs  of 
modern  public  schools. 

In  thus  defining  the  question  and  ruthlessly  narrowing  the 
issues,  as  I  have  done  in  a  somewhat  arbitrary  way,  and  in 
seeking  a  clear  path  among  opinions,  assertions,  and  generali- 
ties more  or  less  connected  with  the  subject,  I  have  found 
considerable  drudgery  and  many  a  lesson  in  patience ;  advan- 
tages, by  the  way,  which,  some  people  contend,  go  only  with 


566  APPENDIX 

enforced  work.  On  some  aspects  of  this  matter  only  opinions 
can  be  given;  on  others,  sound  reasoning;  on  still  others,  the 
results  of  scientific  investigation.  Such  results  are  most  val- 
uable, for,  in  dealing  with  questions  concerning  which  the 
organization  of  contemporary  educational  experience  gives 
facts,  it  is  an  old  and  pernicious  habit  to  guide  practice  by 
mere  individual  opinion.  On  such  questions  your  opinion  is 
as  good  as  mine,  mine  is  as  good  as  yours,  and  the  chances 
are  that  neither  is  worth  much.  Consequently,  wherever  I 
have  found  it  possible  to  collect  specific  evidence  on  any  phase 
of  the  subject  at  hand,  I  have  done  so,  with  the  result  that  my 
own  attitude  has  passed  from  doubt  —  a  good  old-fashioned 
doubt  —  to  the  conviction  that  in  all  the  public  high  schools 
of  the  country  the  studies  should  be  wholly  elective.1 

Whatever  differences  of  opinion  there  may  be  concerning 
the  value  of  the  elective  system,  no  one  can  deny  that  its 
progress  —  like  that  of  reform  everywhere  —  has  been  slow 
and  painful.  At  every  turn  it  has  met  a  stone  wall  of  con- 
servatism. For  one  educated  under  the  old  prescribed  regime, 
and  indoctrinated  with  the  venerable  idea  of  what  constitutes 
a  liberal  education,  it  is  difficult  to  eliminate  the  personal 
equation.  Scholars  cling  naturally  to  old  ideas,  old  ideals, 
old  methods;  no  body  of  men  is  more  stolid,  more  averse  to 
change.  In  business  such  men  fail,  driven  to  the  wall  by 
competition  with  those  who  are  ready  to  adopt  new  methods. 
But  education  fosters  conservatism;  as  a  rule,  men  prefer  to 
teach  the  things  they  were  taught,  and  to  teach  them  in  the 
same  way.  So  the  mistakes  of  fathers  are  visited  upon  chil- 
dren and  upon  children's  children,  unto  how  many  generations 
only  the  history  of  education  can  tell. 

Just  at  this  point  the  reply  is  made  that  in  all  ages  con- 
servative forces  have  been  valuable  safeguards  to  progress. 

1  This  introduction,  though  it  is  admirable  for  its  thoroughness  and 
lucidity,  and  though  it  is  well  adapted  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
written,  may  be  criticised  as  being  somewhat  heavy  and  rigid  for  the 
general  purposes  of  popular  presentation. 


APPENDIX  567 

True,  conservatism  often  means  needed  restraint ;  it  curbs  and 
tempers  the  ultra-radical.  In  education,  however,  conservatism 
has  oftener  meant  stagnation — a  fact  so  conspicuous  that  not 
even  the  most  ardent  opponents  of  the  elective  system  venture 
to  deny  it.  Nearly  every  progressive  step  has  been  made 
against  violent,  prolonged,  and  often  vicious  opposition.  For 
hundreds  of  years  schoolmasters  kept  their  backs  to  the  future, 
and  vainly  endeavored  to  ignore  the  crying  demands  of  the 
present.  We  congratulate  ourselves  that  we  have  now  turned 
about ;  that  with  every  effort  to  think  clearly  and  independ- 
ently we  are  feeling  the  pulse  of  present  need  and  striving 
even  for  glimpses  of  the  future.  Shall  we  not,  then,  in  all 
fairness  to  the  friends  of  the  new,  as  well  as  to  ourselves, 
endeavor  to  look  on  this  question  without  prejudice? 

The  elective  principle  can  be  justified  in  the  first  considera- 
tion only  by  proving  that  each  pupil  is  better  able  to  choose 
for  himself  alone  —  not  for  any  other  pupil  or  for  the  ficti- 
tious "  average  boy,"  but  for  himself  alone  —  than  is  any 
individual,  however  wise,  or  any  body  of  men,  however  experi- 
enced, to  choose  for  all  pupils.  This  proposition  is  funda- 
mental. To  it  the  advocates  of  prescribed  studies  reply  that 
certain  studies  should  be  required  of  all.  At  the  risk  of 
wearisome  repetition,  I  reduce  their  argument,  for  the  sake 
of  clearness,  to  this  syllogism : 

First,  there  are  certain  studies  essential  for  all  pupils  in 
public  high  schools. 

Second,  students  left  to  their  own  choice  will  not  elect  those 
studies. 

Conclusion :  therefore  those  studies  should  be  prescribed. 

If  either  premise  is  false,  the  conclusion  does  not  follow. 

First,  then,  is  it  true  that  there  are  studies  which  should 
be  required  of  all  pupils  in  public  high  schools  ?  Are  we  sure 
that  any  subjects  naturally  belonging  to  high-school  years 
should  be  forced  on  all  pupils,  boys  and  girls,  rich  and  poor, 
weak  and  strong,  bright  and  dull,  regardless  of  their  aims, 
aptitudes,  desires,  ambitions,  temperaments,  capacities?  It 


568  APPENDIX 

seems  at  least  doubtful.  In  these  important  respects  no  two 
individuals  are  alike.  We  need  no  master  of  psychology,  no 
profound  student  of  education,  to  tell  us  that  each  high-school 
pupil  is  an  infinitely  complex  organization,  the  duplicate  of 
which  does  not  and  never  will  exist.  By  heredity  and  by 
environment  he  differs  widely  from  all  other  human  beings 
in  passions,  adaptabilities,  emotions,  desires,  powers,  health. 
In  no  other  creature  are  they  associated  as  they  are  in  him. 
His  will-force,  enthusiasm,  interest,  moral  purposes  are  aroused 
and  used  in  ways  wholly  his  own.  ^  In  the  rate  of  physical 
development,  in  bodily  endurance,  in  home  influences,  in  time 
of  entering  school,  in  regularity  of  attendance,  in  future  possi- 
bilities —  one  could  stretch  out  this  enumeration  to  the  crack 
of  doom,  for  in  an  endless  number  of  particulars  each  indi- 
vidual is  unlike  all  the  others  in  any  school.  What  then,  shall 
we  attempt  to  cast  this  mind  into  one  mold  with  all  others, 
and  subject  it  to  the  same  treatment,  the  same  work,  the  same 
tests,  the  same  influences  for  the  same  length  of  time  ?  Shall 
we,  in  prescribing  for  our  own  children,  neglect  the  universal 
principle  of  endless  diversity,  and  plan  our  public  high-school 
programmes  for  a  purely  imaginative  child  —  the  "genus 
homo"  the  "average  high-school  pupil'' — who  never  did  and 
never  can  exist?  If  so,  we  must  inevitably  neglect  all  the 
species,  all  the  living  potentialities,  all  the  vastly  dissimilar 
individuals  who  knock  at  the  doors  of  public  high  schools  in 
a  democratic  community. 

There  is,  it  is  true,  another  side  to  this  question  of  indi- 
viduality. Not  all  the  variations  are  worthy,  and  it  is  said 
that  the  least  commendable  may  be  eliminated  by  prescribed 
studies ;  there  is  a  limit  to  the  desirable  development  of  per- 
sonal traits.  If,  indeed,  any  course  of  study  prescribed  for  all' 
could  search  out  and  stunt  in  each  individual  his  unworthy 
variations  from  the  normal,  we  should  have  to  yield  a  point 
in  favor  of  required  work.  But  the  argument  is  not  sound. 
In  the  first  place,  it  assumes  that  schoolmen  are  sufficiently 
wise  to  decide  just  what  variations  from  the  normal  are  good 


APPENDIX  569 

and  what  are  bad  —  just  how  far  it  is  well  to  encourage  the 
development  of  individuality.  To  accord  such  wisdom  to  the 
makers  of  programmes  is  to  ignore  the  experience  of  centuries, 
furthermore,  there  are  as  many  variations  as  there  are  indi- 
viduals, as  many  special  problems  as  there  are  pupils.  No 
me  answer  will  suffice.  Studies  prescribed  for  large  groups 
—  as  they  must  be  in  public  high  schools  —  cannot  satisfy 
manifold  special  needs. 

Many  types  of  the  abnormal  have  no  place  at  all  in  public 
ligh  schools ;  much  less  ^have  they  a  right  to  influence  the 
course  of  study  for  the  ninety  and  nine  per  cent  of  the  normal. 
Tor  the  extremely  defective  there  are  special  public  institu- 
;ions,  as  there  always  must  be ;  and  there  are  private  schools 
which  find  possibly  their  only  convincing  and  permanent  jus- 
ification  in  their  ability  to  care  for  extreme  cases  as  public 
chools  certainly  cannot  do. 

The  time  has  come  when  the  public  high  school  should  fit 
he  work  to  the  pupil,  and  cease  forcing  upon  the  unhappy 
;eacher  the  impossible  task  of  making  the  pupil  fit  the  work. 
A.t  least,  let  us  cease  condemning  the  teacher  because  out  of 
ihese  innumerable  differences  among  individuals  he  is  unable 
o  produce  "  uniform  nonentities."  Certainly  this  is  not  the 
mrpose  of  the  best  teachers  of  prescribed  work  j  many  of 
hem  are  doing  as  well  as  they  can  to  discover  and  develop 
he  individual;  and  they  do  much.  That  they  accomplish 
10  more  is  the  fault  of  a  system  which  does  not  encourage 
>r  respond  to  their  efforts. 

Dean  Briggs,  of  Harvard  University,  expressing  "  Some  Old- 
fashioned  Doubts  about  New-Fashioned  Education/7  phrases 

sound  and  generally  accepted  principle  when  he  says : 
Education  should  always  recognize  the  fitness  of  different 
ninds  for  different  .work."  It  is  at  least  pertinent  to  ask 
vhether  the  word  "  always  "  is  not  sufficiently  comprehensive 
;o  include  the  high-school  years.  Prescribed  courses  do  not 
•ecognize  the  fitness  of  different  minds  for  different  work ;  on 
ihe  contrary,  such  courses  hinder  the  differentiation  of  those 


570  APPENDIX 

various  individuals  in  our  public  schools  who  are  soon  to  take 
widely  different  places  in  the  world  outside  the  schoolroom. 
No  studies  should  be  required  of  all. 

I  know  that  men  may  still  be  found  clinging  to  the  mediaeval 
doctrine  that  certain  subjects  alone  train  certain  faculties  of 
the  mind  —  one  subject  for  the  reason,  another  for  the  memory, 
still  a  third  for  the  imagination,  and  possibly  one  royal  subject 
(their  specialty)  which  trains  all  the  faculties.  I  also  know 
of  men  who  would  go  hungry  rather  than  sit  at  a  table  of 
thirteen.  But  ideas  which  have  long  been  banished  to  the 
vast  limbo  of  educational  absurdities  cannot  well  affect  this 
question  in  the  present  day.  The  advocates  of  the  elective 
system  believe  that  it  takes  an  ingenious  child  to  choose  a 
high-school  course  of  studies  which  (if  properly  taught  —  the. 
necessary  proviso)  will  seriously  neglect  the  training  of  any 
important  faculty  of  the  mind. 

For  reasons  soon  to  appear,  I  shall  spend  but  little  time  on 
the  discussion  of  educational  values.  I  believe  that  the  pres- 
tige of  the  studies  which  have  been  imposed  on  students  most 
commonly  —  say,  Latin,  geometry,  algebra  —  is  due  to  tradi- 
tion ;  it  is  the  heritage  from  an  age  when  the  field  of  knowl- 
edge was  much  narrower  than  it  is  to-day,  when  science  had 
no  place  ;  it  is  due  to  this,  as  well  as  to  the  conservative 
influences  so  strong  in  education,  and  to  the  remarkable  body 
of  teachers  and  well-organized  methods  and  materials  which 
these  subjects,  more  than  others,  have  had  in  the  past. 

But  the  opponents  of  the  elective  system  free  its  advocates 
from  the  need  of  any  discussion  of  relative  values  of  studies  j 
the  reason  is  plain  —  the  final,  incontestable  reason  why  no 
high-school  studies  can  be  sensibly  prescribed  for  all  —  the 
opponents  of  free  choice  are  utterly  unable  to  agree  among 
themselves  as  to  what  the  prescribed  course  should  be.  In 
proof  I  could  fill  volumes  with  suggested  schedules.  I  have 
before  me  more  than  a  hundred  different  courses  of  study 
prescribed  for  high  schools,  agreeing  in  one  point  only, 
namely,  in  prescribing  something.  For  example,  some  prescribe 


APPENDIX  571 

[physiology  the  first  year;  others  prescribe  it  the  last  year; 
thers  omit  it  entirely.  When  there  are  not  a  half-dozen 
iigh  schools  in  the  entire  country,  under  separate  manage- 
nent,  with  identical  courses  of  study,  is  it  not  preposterous 
o  maintain  that  there  is  a  vital,  fixed  interrelation  and  one 
latural  sequence  of  subjects? 

Says  S.  D.  Brooks  :  "  So  in  a  programme  — much  should  be 
nsisted  on";  and  he  insists  on  one  programme.  Says  W.  T. 
Harris  :  "All  studies  should  be  required " ;  and  he  insists 
n  another  programme.  This  diversity  of  opinion  is  typical, 
,nd,  as  Professor  Greenough  says,  "fairly  represents  the 
ireaking  up  of  all  the  old  opinions  as  to  what  should  consti- 
ute  a  liberal  education." 

Albert  Stickney,  a  radical  adversary  of  the  elective  prin- 
iple,  said  before  the  New  York  Harvard  Club :  "As  to  what 
his  prescribed  course  of  study  should  be,  we  laymen  do  not 
iretend  to  say ;  as  to  that  point  we  are  profoundly  ignorant." 
Chat  is  just  the  crux,  the  fatal  weakness  in.  the  whole  case 
igainst  the  new  system.  That  is  at  least  one  difnculty  on 

ich  both  sides  must  agree,  for  as  to  any  studies  which 
hould  be  required  of  all  students  in  all  public  high  schools 
he  advocates  of  the  elective  principle  are  also  "profoundly 
gnorant." 

The  disagreement  as  to  what  those  "certain  essential 
tudies  "  are  indicates  a  fallacy  in  the  whole  argument.  That 
allacy  is  the  assumption  of  the  educational  value  of  each  sub- 
set for  all  students,  whereas  contemporary  literature,  teachers' 
onventions — all  educational  discussions — prove  that  we  have 
.o  such  definite  knowledge  to  guide  us.  Studies  undoubtedly 
•ary  in  educational  worth  just  as  food  products  vary  in  nour- 
shing  value.  But  is  it  sensible  to  say  that  therefore  a 
choolmaster  should  prescribe  the  same  curriculum  for  all  his 
upils,  and  a  physician  the  same  diet  for  all  his  patients? 
Certainly  not,  for  in  both  instances  the  value  of  the  food 
epends  on  the  power  of  the  individual  to  assimilate  it. 
schoolmaster,  as  well  as  the  physician,  must  diagnose 


572  APPENDIX 

each  case  before  prescribing.  It  is  impossible  to  determine, 
even  at  a  given  time,  a  fixed  educational  value  of  any  subject 
for  all  pupils  :  there  is  no  such  thing. 

Still  another  difficulty  is  suggested  in  a  recent  number  of 
the  School  Review :  most  of  us  are  inclined  to  think  that  the 
particular  studies  which  we  ourselves  have  pursued  are  on  the 
whole  superior,  and  that  the  one  study  to  which  we  have 
devoted  most  time  is  the  aristocrat  of  the  whole  group.  It  is 
certainly  difficult  for  a  teacher  to  eliminate  the  personal  equa- 
tion ;  and  if  he  could  do  so,  I  wonder  if  we  should  want  him. 

These,  then,  seem  to  be  the  main  reasons  for  the  general 
disagreement  as  to  what  should  constitute  the  prescribed 
course :  the  impossibility  of  successfully  educating  different 
individuals  by  one  regime,  of  determining  the  fixed  value  of 
any  study  for  all  pupils,  or  of  eliminating  prejudices. 

Whatever  the  reasons  may  be,  the  fact  remains  —  a  stubborn 
one  for  those  who  decry  the  elective  plan  —  they  cannot  agree. 

Added  to  all  this  we  have  the  lessons  of  history.  I  shall 
not  here  attempt  to  epitomize  the  wearisome  account  of  cen- 
turies of  prescribed  studies.  Every  age  has  had  its  ideal  cur- 
riculum. We  now  see,  or  think  we  see,  that  for  centuries 
these  have  all  been  wrong.  No  country  at  any  time  has  eveij 
devised  a  school  programme  which  to  us  appears  to  have  been 
perfectly  adapted  to  the  needs  of  all  its  people.  Still  there  arej 
men  who,  unmindful  of  the  infinite  diversity  among  individ^ 
uals,  oblivious  of  the  fatal  disagreements  among  themselves* 
and  regardless  of  the  plain  lessons  of  history,  are  so  presumpl 
tuous  as  fondly  to  imagine  that  at  last  to  them  —  to  them 
alone  —  has  been  revealed  the  one  prescribed  course  which  wl 
can  safely  impose  —  nay,  which  we  must  impose  —  on  all  oufl 
children. 

If  at  this  point  we  take  another  look  at  our  syllogism,  we 
find  that  the  combined  testimony  of  both  sides  of  the  question 
overthrows  the  first  premise :  with  it  falls  the  syllogism; 
Still,  not  all  the  advocates  of  required  studies  will  be  satis- 
fied with  the  foregoing  argument.  Here  is  a  man  who  wishea 


APPENDIX  573 

to  test  the  second  premise ;  to  inquire  whether  the  studies 
most  frequently  urged  as  essential  for  all  are  not  very  largely 
neglected  when  prescription  is  removed.  He  acknowledges 
the  wide  disagreement  as  to  what  the  fixed  course  should  be, 
but  he  believes  that  his  own  ideas  are  right ;  he  is  sure  that 
no  study  or  group  of  studies  can  take  the  place  of  Latin ;  he 
is  sure  that,  however  widely  and  variously  abnormal  an  indi- 
vidual may  be,  the  one  subject  he  must  take  is  Latin  —  or  is 
it  physiology  ?  The  opinion  of  such  a  man  —  even  though  mere 
opinion  —  should  not  be  lightly  set  aside.  He  has  a  right  to 
ask  whether  students  under  the  elective  system  will  not  avoid 
the  studies  which  are  closest  to  his  own  heart.  And  although 
the  answer  cannot  affect  the  judgment  of  those  who  accept  the 
preceding  argument,  the  answer  is  at  least  interesting. 

If  students  to  any  extent  avoid  the  studies  most  commonly 
defended,  surely  investigation  concerning  the  actual  working 
of  the  elective  system  will  show  that  result.  Let  us  see. 
The  High  School  in  Galesburg,  Illinois,1  the  first  to  make  all 
studies  elective,  has  now  had  nine  years'  experience  with  the 
elective  system.  The  superintendent  says:  " There  has  been 
no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  pupils  to  omit  the  so-calle! 
disciplinary  studies  for  those  said  to  be  easy ;  they  have  not 
been  inclined  to  allow  their  own  whims  to  govern  them,  nor, 
what  is  worse,  to  follow  the  whims  of  others."  But  is  this 
the  experience  of  the  whole  country?  In  answering  this 
question,  we  may  consider  the  reports  of  the  United  States 
commissioner  of  education  as  fairly  accurate  ;  at  any  rate,  they 
are  the  best  evidence  available  for  the  whole  country,  and,  if 
they  err  at  all,  are  as  liable  to  favor  one  side  as  the  other. 
The  reports  which  concern  us  most  closely  are  those  from 
1889-1890  to  1900-1901,  during  which  time  the  elective 
principle  made  greatest  progress  in  public  high  schools. 

Now,  although  there  are  no  subjects  included  in  all  prescribed 
curricula,  there  are  several  subjects  more  frequently  insisted 

1  September,  1895. 


574 


APPENDIX 


on  than  others,  and  of  these  most  fear 'is  expressed  for  Latin, 
geometry,  and  algebra.  During  the  onward  march  of  the  new 
principle,  what  has  been  the  fate  of  these  subjects  ?  Has  the 
number  of  boys  and  girls  studying  these  subjects  decreased 
while  the  number  enrolled  in  other  subjects  increased?  The 
theorizing  of  our  opponents  leads  us  to  think  so.  Yet  the  official 
reports  of  the  United  States  commissioner  of  education  for 
the  ten  years  show  that  the  number  of  students  in  Latin  has 
increased  173  per  cent ;  in  history,  153  per  cent ;  in  geometry, 
150  per  cent ;  in  algebra,  141  per  cent.  In  no  other  subject 
(except  English)  has  the  gain  in  enrollment  been  so  great. 


TABLE  I 


STUDIES 

1889-1890 

1900-1901 

Per  cent  of 
Increase 

Latin  

100  144 

273,314 

174 

History  

82  909 

210  813 

152 

Geometry  

59  781 

150  788 

147 

Algebra  .  . 

127  397 

308  557 

141 

German  

34,208 

83  702 

131 

French   

28  032 

44  889 

60 

Physics  . 

63  644 

99  666 

50 

Chemistry    

28,665 

40  964 

43 

Greek  

12  869 

14  232 

9 

This  is  significant.  The  studies  about  which  there  is  most 
fear  are  the  very  studies  which  have  actually  progressed  most, 
side  by  side  with  the  elective  system. 

This  is  true  for  the  whole  country,  but  is  it  true  for  the 
largest  cities  where  the  freedom  of  choice  has  been  greatest  ? 
The  answer  is  given  in  the  same  reports.  Compare  the  tables 
for  the  public  high  schools  of  the  largest  fifty  cities  in  the 
United  States  with  the  tables  for  all  other  public  high  schools. 
The  ratio  of  the  number  of  students  taking  Latin  to  the  whole 
number  of  students  in  the  largest  cities  does  not  Yfcry  three 


APPENDIX 


5T5 


tenths  of  one  per  cent  from  the  similar  ratio  in  the  rest  of  the 

country. 

But  still  the  man  of  doubt  may  ask :  What  are  the  figures 
r  the  North  Atlantic  Division  of  the  country  where  there 

las  been  widest  acceptance  of  the  system  ?     Here  in  Table  II 

are  the  results  compiled  from  the  report  for  1899-1900  of  the 

commissioner  of  education : 


TABLE  II 

PUBLIC  HIGH  SCHOOLS 


Latin 

Greek 

French 

German 

Algebra 

Geometry 

50.45 
47.01 

2.63 
5.44 

8.29 
18.48 

15.45 

19.89 

56.96 
50.12 

27.83 
27.66 

The  table  gives  the  percentage,  in  each  subject,  of  the  whole 
number  of  students  enrolled  in  the  public  high  schools  —  the 
first  row  across  for  the  United  States,  the  second  for  the 
North  Atlantic  Division.  Surely  there  is  not  here  sufficient 
difference  to  cause  the  slightest  alarm. 

Table  III  gives  further  evidence  on  this  question  —  evidence 
which  may  be  misleading  without  a  note  of  explanation.  The 
:able  gives  the  number  of  elections  in  each  of  twenty-eight 
subjects  for  each  of  nine  public  high  schools  of  the  city  of 
Boston.  This  material  I  have  collected  for  the  sake  of  its 
oearing  on  the  question  of  elective  studies.  I  have  therefore 
omitted  the  Boston  Latin  School  and  the  Girls7  Latin  School, 
in  which  only  a  part  of  the  work  is  optional.  The  table  shows 
that  of  the  5318  pupils  enrolled  in  these  nine  high  schools  in 
the  year  1903-1904,  only  1154  elected  Latin.  This  small  pro- 
portion is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  majority  of  boys  and  girls 
in  the  city  who  desired  classical  courses  elected  one  of  the  two 
schools  which  are  not  shown  in  the  table.  For  the  whole  city 
the  number  of  high-school  students  studying  Latin  is  about 


576 


APPENDIX 


one  half  the  whole  number  enrolled,  which  is  the  proportion 
given  by  the  commissioner  of  education  for  the  entire  country. 


TABLE   III 

Showing  the  Number  of  Elections  in  Each  of  Twenty-eight  Subjects  for  Each  of  Nine 
Public  High  Schools  of  the  City  of  Boston 


s 

1 

8 

'A 
fi 

Boston  High 

,a 

I 

"3 
'3 
£ 

§ 

'g 

' 

.£) 

•  c$ 

£ 

1 

S 

«4-< 

Schools 

S-i 

fa* 

o 

t^ 

•S 

& 

02 

% 

<j> 

3  -u 

bJO 

O 

6 

"be 

1 

72  O 

vo 

Q  « 

1 

S 

1 

I 

j? 

8 

"o 

1 

3 

b 

6 

W 

o 

£ 

O 

02 

^ 

0 

s 

M 

291 

Brighton    .... 

273 

159 

8 

8 

12 

113 

11 

143 

50 

7 

98 

47 

12 

51 

226 

Charlestown    .  . 

175 

96 

13 

12 

0 

23 

0 

121 

17 

0 

40 

4 

0 

33 

1078 

Dorchester   .  .  . 

1030 

535 

54 

67 

14 

318 

0 

672 

203 

23 

244 

71 

87 

263 

424 

East  Boston    .  . 

402 

297 

0 

27 

0 

83 

5 

209 

23 

0 

107 

32 

26 

118 

834 

English  High  .  . 

818 

423 

48 

81 

10 

88 

0 

571 

104 

28 

437 

122 

61 

25 

898 

Girls'  High  .  .  . 

972 

855 

94 

0 

0 

194 

0 

622 

142 

0 

218 

164 

21 

361 

533 

South  Boston  .  . 

522 

243 

5 

0 

0 

103 

5 

248 

83 

64 

161 

35 

13 

117 

671 

Roxbury  

652 

304 

0 

30 

0 

123 

34 

334 

262 

0 

222 

80 

0 

102 

363 

West  Roxbury  . 

357 

282 

0 

7 

0 

107 

7 

201 

61 

0 

132 

48 

20 

59 

Total  

5201 

3194 

222 

232 

36 

1152 

62 

3121 

945 

122 

1659 

603 

240 

1129 

0, 

3 

Boston  High 

^"E 

>> 

b 

a 

S 
Si 

If 

"S 

8 

§ 

Schools 

si 

I 
I 

S  be 

§ 

to 

| 

bo 

.9 

"C 

1 

II 

"o 

,4 

£ 

1 

t? 

0) 

S 

p  ^ 

'r'. 

>-i  ^ 

& 

JH 

1 

o 

Orb 

2 

*53 

S 

^tn 

'So 

1 

8 

S 

£° 

fi 

6 

"S 

a 

1 

A& 

CM 

O 

a 

1 

o 

1 

S 

291 

Brighton    .... 

11 

33 

0 

7 

14 

2 

114 

84 

135 

22 

250 

167 

80 

117 

226 

Charlestown    .  . 

8 

9 

9 

11 

0 

103 

95 

86 

0 

179 

128 

46 

107 

1078 

Dorchester   .  .  . 

67 

39 

15 

126 

109 

0 

366 

446 

205 

0 

834 

630 

305 

759 

424 

East  Boston  .  .  . 

27 

30 

16 

17 

77 

0 

130 

193 

116 

0 

392 

314 

78 

185 

834 

English  High  .  . 

81 

0 

0 

69 

62 

0 

256 

324 

238 

0 

187 

153 

743 

760 

898, 

Girls'  High  '.  .  . 

46 

77 

0 

130 

91 

14 

347 

397 

157 

0 

826 

864 

0 

457 

533 

South  Boston  .  . 

37 

10 

0 

18 

58 

9 

261 

131 

200 

0 

451 

380 

150 

219 

671 

Roxbury  

0 

26 

24 

11 

137 

0 

376 

237 

297 

45 

360 

480 

138 

185 

363 

West  Roxbury  . 

0 

0 

23 

37 

56 

0 

110 

110 

68 

16 

266 

237 

81 

323 

Total  

269 

223 

87 

424 

615 

25 

2065 

2017 

1502 

83 

3745 

3353 

1621 

3112 

APPENDIX 


577 


TABLE  IV 

Table  for  Nine  High  Schools  of  Boston  (1903-1904) 


Per  Cent  of 
Offerings 


Per  Cent  of 
Electives 


English 8.5 

French 8.6 

Mathematics 9.0 

Bookkeeping 4.9 

History 7.0 

Phonography  and  Typewriting  ....  9.8 

Drawing 7.1 

Latin 9.7 

Biology 3.5 

German 7.4 

Chemistry 4.5 

Physics 3.5 

Commercial  Geography 1.2 

Commercial  Law 1.4 

Physiology 0.4 

Manual  Training 0.4 

Civil  Government 1.2 

Spanish 3.6 

Greek 3.7 

Physical  Geography 1.1 

Household  Art .  ...  - 0.8 

Astronomy 0.9 

Economics  .  1.0 


19.7 
13.4 
10.3 
9.8 
9.2 
8.3 
6.2 
5.3 
4.7 
4.0 
2.8 
1.8 
0.7 
0.6 
0.5 
0.5 
0.5 
0.5 
0.3 
0.3 
0.3 
0.1 
0.1 


All  this  goes  to  prove  that  in  the  country  as  a  whole,  in  the 
largest  cities,  in  the  North  Atlantic  Division,  in  the  city  of 
Boston  —  everywhere  in  the  United  States  —  the  most  rapid 
growth  in  the  last  ten  years  has  been  in  classics,  mathematics, 
history,  and  modern  languages — a  fact  which  overthrows  nine 
tenths  of  the  theory  regarding  the  probable  fate  of  certain 
studies.  Under  the  elective  system,  students  have  not  to  an 
alarming  extent  avoided  these  subjects. 


578  APPENDIX 

Still  we  are  not  done  with  the  first  part  of  the  issue ;  it  is 
further  held  that  pupils  will  choose  foolishly,  in  that  they  will 
elect  easy  courses,  or  those  for  which  they  are  not  prepared, 
or  those  taught  by  favorite  teachers,  or  those  of  little  value,  or 
disconnected  courses.  On  these  points  there  has  been  almost 
endless  theorizing.  Schoolmasters  are  fond  of  the  a  priori 
assumption  that  such  things  must  be ;  they  are  not  fond  of  i 
the  labor  of  ascertaining  just  how  things  are,  nor  does  their 
daily  work  leave  them  the  time  or  the  energy  for  such  inves- 
tigation. Some  of  this  work  has  been  done  by  the  Harvard 
Education  Seminary  in  the  years  1900  to  1904.  .  .  . 

In  order  to  secure  information  regarding  the  working  of 
the  elective  system  in  the  public  high  schools  of  the  United 
States,  the  Harvard  Education  Seminary  secured  from  the 
graduating  classes  of  fifty-four  schools  answers  to  a  series 
of  questions.  Only  those  schools  were  included  which  allowed 
a  large  measure  of  freedom  to  pupils.  A  total  of  2485  indi- 
vidual sets  of  answers  was  received.  Regarding  the  motives 
which  determined  the  choice  of  studies,  the  following  questions 
were  asked : 

Has  your  choice  of  studies  been  determined  by  any  of  the  follow- 
ing reasons : 

a)  Temporary  interest  due  to  the  recommendation  of  other 
students? 

6)  The  advice  of  teachers,  parents,  or  guardians? 

c)  Deliberate  choice  in  accordance  with  your  own  tastes? 

d)  The  desire  to  avoid  difficult  subjects? 

e)  If  two  or  more  of  these  reasons  have  determined  your  choices, 
please  say  so.     If  other  reasons  than  those  enumerated  have  deter- 
mined your  choices,  please  give  them. 

Of  the  2485  students  who  replied  to  these  questions,  302, 
or  12.1  per  cent,  replied  that  they  had  been  influenced  in 
their  choice  of  studies  by  temporary  interest  due  to  the  recom- 
mendation of  other  students;  1852  or  74.5  per  cent,  replied 
that  their  choice  of  studies  had  been  determined  wholly  or  in 


APPENDIX  579 

part  by  the  advice  of  teachers,  parents,  or  guardians;  2162, 
or  87  per  cent,  replied  that  they  had  deliberately  chosen  all 
or  the  greater  part  of  their  studies  in  accordance  with  their 
own  tastes ;  285,  or  11  per  cent,  replied  that  in  one  or  more 
choices  they  were  influenced  by  the  desire  to  avoid  difficult 
subjects. 

Of  the  1557  pupils  in  the  first  thirty-five  schools  included 
in  the  first  investigation,  511  (that  is,  about  one  third)  gave, 
in  reply  to  question  e,  various  motives  for  choice  which  may 
be  included  under  the  general  term  "  vocational  needs." 

Regarding  the  extent  to  which  pupils  are  influenced  in  the 
selection  of  studies  by  the  action  of  their  associates,  a  com- 
parison of  the  programmes  of  one  class  of  pupils  for  four  years 
gives  good  evidence.  For  this-  purpose  take  the  High  School 
of  Galesburg,  Illinois.  The  125  reports  sent  to  the  Harvard 
Education  Seminary  by  the  members  of  the  Senior  class  of 
this  school  exhibit  119  different  programmes  of  study;  they 
seem  to  show  independent,  deliberate  choice. 

The  2485  pupils  represented  in  the  investigation  gave  copies 
of  their  programmes  of  study  for  each  year  of  their  high-school 
course.  An  examination  of  those  few  reports  which  gave  tem- 
porary interest  or  the  desire  to  avoid  difficult  subjects  as 
motives  for  choice  showed  that  the  resulting  programmes  of 
study  differed  but  little  from  the  programmes  of  other  stu- 
dents. In  such  a  large  number  there  were  undoubtedly  some 
mistakes,  yet,  in  the  opinions  of  the  principals,  so  far  as 
those  opinions  were  given,  all  the  programmes  were  better 
suited  to  the  individuals  than  any  one  prescribed  course 
could  be. 

As  to  the  value  of  these  replies  from  students  there  may 
well  be  difference  of  opinion.  My  own  belief  is  that  the 
reports  as  a  whole  may  be  taken  as  the  honest,  careful  judg- 
ment of  each  individual  as  to  the  motives  which  determined 
his  choice  of  studies.  The  replies  were  collected  and  tabu- 
lated by  men  of  varied  opinions  regarding  the  elective  system, 
who  were  not  striving  to  make  the  reports  read  one  way  or 


580  APPENDIX 

the  other.  Furthermore,  wherever  the  student  gave  as  a 
reason  for  choice  the  desire  to  avoid  difficult  subjects,  the 
choice  was  not  one  that  could  be  condemned  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  individual  pupil.  For  example,  one  pupil  said 
frankly :  "  Took  German  instead  of  Latin ;  it  was  easier,  and 
I  always  like  to  have  things  as  easy  as  possible."  Shall  we 
say  that  even  this  was  surely  an  unwise  choice  ?  Not  if  the 
elective  system  is  offered  with  its  necessary  proviso,  that  what 
a  boy  chooses,  that  he  must  do  well. 

The  table  of  replies  is  not  exact,  and  the  significance  of  the 
investigation  cannot  be  given  in  figures.  It  was  not  always 
easy  to  determine  what  the  student  tried  to  "say.  Here,  for 
an  extreme  instance,  is  one  reply  to  the  question  concerning 
motives  for  choice : 

Contrary  to  the  recommendation  of  my  grammar  teacher  I  choose 
the  English  course  in  preference  to  the  Latin  course  because  of  the 
advice  of  my  father  and  in  accordance  with  my  own  tastes  because 
I  had  determined  to  give  my  time  and  attention  and  energy  to  art 
after  I  graduated  and  I  thought  Latin  unessential  for  such  a  course 
and  thus  laid  greater  stress  on  Mathematics.  [What  could  the  boy 
have  studied  in  the  English  course  !] 

How  can  it  be  that  nearly  all  of  these  2485  elected  pro- 
grammes of  study  are  apparently  better  for  the  particular  pupils 
than  any  prescribed  course  could  be?  Why  are  not  these  pro- 
grammes "  freaky,"  disconnected,  or  unduly  specialized ;  why 
do  they  not  go  far  astray  ?  The  reason  is  that  pupils  are  pro- 
tected from  unwise  choices  by  many  natural  safeguards.  This 
the  opponents  of  the  system  have  admitted  in  urging  that 
absolutely  free  choice  is  not  possible.  To  be  sure,  it  is  not. 
So,  when  such  a  strenuous  opponent  as  Mr.  W.  J.  S.  Bryan, 
of  St.  Louis,  points  out  the  inherent  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  free  choice,  he  slips  over,  apparently  unwittingly,  to  the 
goodly  company  of  elective-system  advocates.  The  system,  as 
it  is  and  must  be  administered,  is  protected  in  many  ways. 

Of  these  natural  safeguards  there  are  at  least  eight  worth 
mentioning.  Each  points  the  course  through  safe  channels; 


APPENDIX  581 

together  they  prevent  the  wrecks  which  are  feared.  Firs.t  of 
Sail,  there  is  the  advice  of  teachers  and  parents,  which  no 
system  can  eliminate.  Happily  such  advice  becomes  more 
and  more  intelligent,  more  and  more  valued  by  pupils,  hence 
knore  and  more  effective  in  preventing  mistakes  as  the  chances 
Ipr  election  increase.  There  is  also  powerful  tradition  con- 
jcerning  studies,  which  exerts  such  influence  that  nearly  all  are 
{Loath  to  stray  far  from  blazed  paths.  There  is  the  capacity 
pf  the  pupil  —  physical  and  mental  —  which  limits  the  num- 
ber of  possible  choices.  There  is  the  fixed  number  of  school 
(hours  per  day,  which  restricts  the  scope  of  school  programmes. 
[There  is  the  limited  teaching  force,  which  cannot  undertake 
po  teach  "  fringe  "  courses  elected  by  the  scattering  few. 

Still  another  restriction  affects  an  increasing  number  of 
students  —  the  entrance  requirements  of  higher  institutions  : 
students  who  find  their  work  laid  out  for  them  in  college 
catalogues  have  only  restricted  options.  Another  safeguard 
lies  in  making  choice  deliberate :  pup^s  on  graduating  from 
grammar  schools  are  asked  to  considei  what  they  will  study 
in  the  high  school.  Pupils  already  in  the  high  school  are 
asked  to  choose  tentative  programmes  for  the  following  year, 
:and  during  the  long  vacation  they  have  time  to  think  over  their 
(choices.  At  the  opening  of  the  school  year  there  are  confer- 
ences, that  the  pupils  may  not  go  about  their  work  blindly. 

Beyond  all  these  safeguards  there  is  one  of  even  greater 
importance  —  the  exceedingly  restrictive  limitation  due  to  the 
sequence  and  dependence  of  studies,  not  a  human,  but  a  divine 
principle.  A  pupil  cannot  elect  second-year  Latin  before  he 
has  completed  the  beginners'  course ;  he  cannot  pursue  higher 
mathematics  without  the  foundations ;  other  courses  he  can- 
not elect  until  he  reaches  the  year  in  which  it  is  deemed  wise 
to  offer  them.  Ah,  but  does  not  such  restriction  destroy  the 
elective  system?  On  the  contrary,  without  these  natural 
safeguards  there  would  be  nothing  we  could  properly  call  a 
"system."  Hedging  electives  in  this  way  is  not  abandoning 
the  principle.  It  is  offering  guidance  precisely  where  guidance 


582  APPENDIX 

is  most  needed — in  order  to  protect  rational  choice,  and  destroy 
the  chance  for  "  crazy  patchwork." 

In  the  advice  of  friends,  in  tradition,  in  physical  and 
mental  limitations,  in  the  number  of  hours  and  the  number 
of  teachers  available,  in  college  requirements,  in  deliberate 
choice,  in  the  laws  of  dependence  and  sequence  applied  to 
the  order  of  studies  —  in  all  these  ways,  and  more,  nearly 
every  pupil  is  amply  protected  from  the  dangers  of  foolish 
choice. 

In  urging  the  inability  of  pupils  to  choose  wisely,  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  new  system  often  employ  amusing  illustrations 
which  prove  nothing,  and  false  analogies  which  are  unfortu- 
nately accepted  by  a  prejudiced  public  as  substitutes  for  evi- 
dence and  reason.  A  fair  example  of  this  kind  of  talk  is  the 
following  editorial  article  from  a  Chicago  paper  : 

The  average  high-school  boy  has  hardly  got  beyond  the  period 
when  he  is  puzzled  to  decide  whether  he  will  be  a  general,  an 
admiral,  or  a  circus  clown.  To  throw  open  a  course  of  study  to  the 
election  of  such  immature  minds  would  be  as  edifying  a  spectacle  as 
to  allow  an  infant  to  experiment  with  different-colored  candies,  for 
the  similitude  could  be  extended  to  the  ultimate  effect  on  brains 
and  bowels. 

This  quotation  was  deemed  worthy  a  place  in  the  report  of 
the  National  Educational  Association  for  1900  (p.  435).  It  is 
the  kind  of  argument  which  is  constantly  urged  against  the 
elective  system.  Yet  the  first  sentence  not  only  assumes 
that  there  is  such  a  being  as  "  the  average  high-school  boy," 
which,  for  the  purpose  at  hand,  not  all  of  us  are  ready  to 
admit,  but  it  also  begs  the  entire  question  as  to  the  maturity 
of  high-school  pupils.  The  second  sentence,  making  no  dis- 
tinction between  infancy  and  adolescence,  employs  a  false 
analogy.  This  would  seem  to  be  fallacy  enough  to  pack  into 
one  brief  quotation,  but  a  little  thought  will  discover  yet 
another  false  assumption  —  that  the  elective  system  offers  the 
child  much  that  is  useless  or  really  harmful,  as  the  colored 
candies  are  assumed  to  be.  The  truth  is  that  if  any  curriculum 


APPENDIX  583 

embrac'es  studies  which  are  useless,  or  harmful,  or  prematurely 
offered,  the  fault  is  not  with  the  elective  system,  but  with 
those  who  allow  such  studies  any  place  in  the  programme. 

More  than  all  this,  such  fallacious  argument  emphasizes  a 
positive  virtue  of  the  system  it  decries.  The  history  of  edu- 
cation and  the  present  varied  and  rapidly  changing  ideas  con- 
cerning the  essential  studies  show  the  probability  of  many 
mistakes  in  school  programmes.  The  studies  may  be  ill-timed, 
ill-suited,  or  ill-taught  —  note  that.  Under  either  system 
some  errors  must  be  made.  The  question  is  whether  we  shall 
impose  these  on  all  alike,  or  leave  open  the  possibility  of 
avoiding  them.  Which  are  worse,  the  mistakes  of  a  few  per- 
sons, or  mistakes  which  are  prescribed  for  all?  The  latter 
are  like  the  rain  of  heaven,  not  in  its  gentle  quality,  but  in 
:alling  on  the  just  and  the  unjust.  There  is  no  escape. 
Prescribed  errors  ravage  not  only  the  dull,  lazy,  shiftless  boys 
and  girls  —  who  are  not  to  be  harmed  much  by  anything  in 
education  —  but  also  the  bright,  the  energetic,  the  mature. 
Public  educational  enterprises  should  be  managed  not  prima- 
rily for  the  customer  who  is  looking  for  a  chance  to  toss  his 
precious  bundle  under  the  counter  and  run  out,  but  for  the 
one  who  is  determined  to  have  the  best  in  the  store  for  his 
particular  needs. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  the  training  in  the  choice  of  studies, 
ike  every  form  of  training  in  independent  action,  leaves  open 
some  chance  for  error.  The  elective  system  does  not  pretend 
to  stop  all  educational  mistakes  and  wastes ;  but  the  mon- 
strous prescribed  mistakes  and  wastes  of  the  old  system  it 
reduces  to  a  minimum. 

The  objection  is  raised  that  the  foolish  pupils  will  choose 
"favorite  teachers"  in  preference  to  necessary  subjects;  here 
is  another  chance  for  them  to  go  astray  under  the  elective  sys- 
tem—  although  it  must  be  admitted  that  to  popular  teachers 
this  danger  seems  slight.  How,  indeed,  can  we  have  any 
:aith  in  an  objection  which  is  founded  on  the  necessar}r  study 
fallacy?  Beyond  that  foundation  the  objection  contains  only 


584  APPENDIX 

one  of  the  distinct  merits  of  the  new  system,  for  the  electior 
of  teachers  is  often  more  important  than  the  election  of  studies 
All  honor  to  the  system  which  enables  a  boy  or  girl  to  escap 
a  hated  teacher  —  a  teacher  who  may  instill  in  that  particula: 
pupil  aversion  to  all  study.  Let  him  choose  his  "favorit* 
teacher,"  whatever  the  subject  may  be. 

My  personal  experience  in  choosing  a  teacher  regardless  o 
the  subject  she  taught  is  not  exceptional.  In  the  high  schoo 
I  elected  a  course  in  history  for  the  sake  of  getting  closer  t< 
the  teacher.  At  the  end  of  the  year  it  would  have  puzzle( 
me  to  remember  what  the  course  was  about,  except  that  somt 
queen  or  other  was  or  was  not  justified  in  killing  some  othe 
queen,  who  was  very  beautiful.  But- one  purpose  I  did  gras] 
so  firmly  that  it  has  not  escaped :  through  the  influence  o 
that  teacher  I  came  to  feel  the  value  of  a  higher  education 
and  a  life  worth  living.  Shall  we  call  that  course  a  failun 
because  I  learned  merely  that  I  wanted  to  do  something  well ' 
Or  shall  we  deem  it  a  wise  system  which  allows  the  pupil  t< 
choose  his  favorite  teacher  ? 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  propositions  of  those  wh< 
seek  for  compromises  between  the  elective  and  prescribed  sys 
terns  which  will  secure  the  good  and  eliminate  the  evil  o 
both.  The  group  system  is  suggested.  It  began  by  offering 
two  courses,  one  called  "  classical "  and  one  called  "  scientific.3 
Soon  a  "business  course"  was  introduced,  and,  in  manv 
schools,  an  "  English  course,"  so  called  apparently  because  i 
especially  neglected  English.  The  number  of  groups  multi 
plied  until  in  some  schools  (the  Detroit  High  School  is  ai 
example)  nine  courses  were  offered  —  nine  distinct  groups 
Most  significant  of  all  is  the  argument  that  the  group  systen 
is  not  too  rigid,  since,  by  special  permission,  a  pupil  who  ha 
elected  one  group  of  studies  may  make  substitutions  fron 
other  groups.  A  good  plan,  indeed  !  But  what  has  becomr 
of  the  system?  When  its  only  distinct  feature,  namely,  tin 
lines  between  the  groups,  is  abolished,  there  is  left  only  th< 
elective  system. 


APPENDIX  585 

The  faults  with  the  group  system  are  that  the  units  of 
choice  are  too  large,  and  it  attempts  to  enforce  specialization. 
The  tendency  is  always  toward  the  multiplication  of  groups 
—  a  happy  tendency,  say  the  friends  of  the  elective  plan,  for 
a  group  system  so  far  differentiated  as  to  provide  for  the 
needs  of  each  student  is  an  ideal  system.  It  offers  the  ideal 
programme,  which  must  be  an  individual  programme. 

Another  proposed  plan  is  partial  election.  Prescribe  the 
main  substance  and  allow  the  pupil  to  choose  the  fringe. 
The  main  fault  with  this  suggestion  has  already  been  dis- 
cussed ;  to  one  who  believes  the  propositions  above  defended 
a  system  of  partial  election  seems  a  farce.  However  impor- 
tant the  trimmings  may  be  the  student  has  a  right  to  cut  out 
the  cloth  of  his  education ;  he  has  a  right  to  do  this  when 
is  hesitating,  with  a  grammar-school  diploma  in  his  hand, 
Between  earning  a  few  dollars  a  week  as  an  unskilled  work- 
nan  and  entering  the  high  school.  Furthermore,  elective  and 
prescribed  studies  side  by  side  are  not  easily  compatible; 
ach  brings  out  the  worst  features  of  the  other.1  Partial 
Section  will  not  suffice. 

The  third  division  of  our  issue  concerns  the  effect  of  the 
elective  system  on  teachers.  It  is  notably  good.  Give  the 
pupils  a  chance  to  choose,  and  you  have  given  teachers  a 
ihance  to  see  the  effect  of  their  work,  and  schools  a  chance 
)f  ridding  themselves  more  easily  of  inefficient  teachers. 
Under  the  prescribed  plan,  an  intolerant,  sluggish,  unprogress- 
ve  teacher  is  annually  apportioned  a  roomful  of  victims, 
regardless  of  their  mental  attitude  toward  their  persecutor. 
The  elective  system  tends  to  force  such  persons  to  become 

setter  teachers  or  leave  the  profession. 

• 

1  "Prescribed  studies,  side  by  side  with  electives,  appear  a  bondage; 
elective,  side  by  side  with  prescribed,  an  indulgence.  So  long  as  all 
studies  are  prescribed,  one  may  be  set  above  the  other  in  the  mind  of  the 
pupil  on  the  ground  of  intrinsic  worth;  let  certain  studies  express  the 
pupil's  wishes,  and  almost  certainly  the  remainder,  valuable  as  they  may 
)e  in  themselves,  will  express  his  disesteem."  Professor  George  H 
Palmer.  The  New  Education. 


586  APPENDIX 

The  elective  system  demands  the  devotion  and  sympathy 
of  teachers  and  principals.  It  requires  much  conference 
among  teachers,  parents,  pupils,  thus  offering  incentives  to 
personal  contact,  which  incentives  are  deplorably  lacking 
under  a  fixed  regime.  The  pupil  sees  at  the  start  that  his 
teachers,  who  are  helping  him  to  plan  a  course  with  his  own 
highest  interests  in  view,  are  true  friends,  worthy  of  his  con- 
fidence and  his  gratitude.  Far  from  being  a  laissez-faire 
policy,  the  free-choice  plan  demands  the  highest  ability  of 
teachers  and  increases  their  responsibility. 

To  good  teachers  this  added  responsibility  means  added 
pleasure.  To  come  into  more  sympathetic  relations  with  the 
adolescent  mind,  to  become  counselors  and  friends  in  the 
highest  sense,  to  treat  individuals  always  as  individuals  —  to 
do  this  is  to  gain  the  legitimate  reward  of  every  workman, 
joy  in  labor.  The  system  which  contributes  most  largely  to 
this  reward  is  the  one  which  tends  to  abolish  the  worn  tread- 
mill, the  taskmaster,  and  reluctant,  forced  pupils  —  the  system 
which  discovers  and  respects  the  individual. 

We  come  now  to  the  moral  argument.  At  once  we  meet 
the  drudgery  theory  which  holds  that  it  is  good  for  boys  and 
girls,  who  are  naturally  inclined  to  rebel  against  authority,  to 
be  compelled  to  do  work  which  they  dislike,  in  order  to  learn 
submission  to  the  external  order  of  things.  Such  is  the  con-j 
ventional  moral  defense  of  prescribed  studies.  Many  teachers  j 
are  like  bicycle  dealers  who  should  persist  in  offering  nothing 
but  solid  tires,  with  the  idea  that  pneumatic  tires  are  immorally ; 
easy.  Many  schools  are  still  run  on  hard  tires. 

The  elective  .system  is  morally  defensible  because  it  honors 
the  will  and  stimulates  the  interest,  willingness,  sense  ofj 
responsibility,  and  enthusiasm  of  pupils  as  no  compulsory 
system  can.  When  a  pupil  is  studying  physics  because  he^ 
likes  it,  because  of  personal  interests  or  mental  aptitudes,  he] 
puts  his  heart  into  the  work.  In  no  other  way  can  he  make 
it  excellent.  Mechanical  diligence,  passive  docility,  unreason- 
ing acceptance  of  commands,  patient  drudgery  —  these  may 


APPENDIX  587 

be  fostered  by  the  whip,  as  they  were  in  slave  ships  of  old ; 
these  may  be  cultivated  in  some  pupils  by  the  old  prescribed 
curriculum.  But  the  aim  of  modern  education  should  be  to 
replace  these  qualities  by  spontaneous  attack,  interest,  reason- 
ing choice,  enthusiastic  work. 

The  elective  system  makes  the  student  conscious  of  what 
he  is  doing,  trains  him  in  independent  choice,  and  so  uplifts 
his  character.  In  pursuing  his  own  ideal,  there  is  moral  worth, 
even  though  there  be  no  pot  of  gold  at  the  end  of  the  rainbow ; 
but  in  submitting  to  overwhelming  force,  there  is  no  moral 
worth.  Comenius  told  us  all  this  long  before  it  had  practical 
application  in  our  schools.  He  said : 

The  attempt  to  compel  nature  into  a  course  into  which  she  is 
not  inclined  is  to  quarrel  with  nature  and  is  fruitless  striving.  Since 
the  servant  is  the  teacher,  not  the  master  or  reconstructor  of  nature, 
let  him  not  drive  forcibly  when  he  sees  the  child  attempting  that  for 
which  he  has  no  skill.  Let  every  one  unhindered  proceed  with  that 
to  which,  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  Heaven,  his  natural  inclina- 
tion attracts  him,  and  he  will  later  be  enabled  to  serve  God  and 
humanity. 

As  a  last  argument  in  favor  of  complete  election  for  the 
public  high  school,  we  may  note  its  adaptation  to  several 
needs  of  modern  democratic  communities.  First,  it  attracts 
more  pupils  to  high  schools  and  keeps  them  longer  there. 
The  emphasis  on  those  studies  usually  deemed  the  foundation 
of  a  liberal  education  prevents  the  public  high  school  from 
being  truly  public.  If  it  is  to  belong  to  the  people,  it  must 
serve  them  regardless  of  the  demands  of  higher  institutions. 
The  public  high  school  is  not  primarily  to  prepare  pupils  for 
higher  schools.  According  to  the  latest  report  of  the  United 
States  commissioner  of  education,  of  the  total  enrollment  of 
American  students,  —  public  and  private,  elementary,  second- 
ary, collegiate,  normal,  law,  medical,  theological,  technological, 
—  94.38  per  cent  were  in  elementary  schools,  4.21  per  cent 
in  secondary  schools,  and  1.41  per  cent  in  all  the  rest  put 
together.  Of  every  hundred  pupils  in  America,  ninety-four 


588  APPENDIX 

do  not  reach  the  high  school;  of  every  hundred  high-school 
pupils,  only  eleven  are  prepared  for  college.  The  public  high 
school  should  aim  to  secure  more  than  4.21  per  cent  of  the 
school  population,  and  should  provide  primarily  for  the  large 
majority  of  pupils  who  will  never  enter  higher  schools.  There 
should  be  laid  out  a  straight  road  to  college,  but  there  should 
also  be  roads  leading  to  the  various  lives  which  various  pupils 
are  to  lead.  So  much  is  commonplace. 

"  The  higher  education/'  says  Lord  Kelvin,  "  has  two  pur- 
poses :  first,  to  enable  the  student  to  earn  a  livelihood,  and, 
second,  to  make  life  worth  living."  An  industrial  democracy 
which  neglects  either  of  these  functions  fails  to  accomplish 
the  purpose  of  education  —  to  make  men  and  women  as  useful 
and  as  happy  as  possible,  to  prepare  for  "complete  living." 
Consequently,  in  spite  of  the  defenders  of  the  classics,  who 
warn  us  to  beware  the  utilitarian  spirit  of  the  age,  modern 
schools  have  discarded  the  programmes  of  ancient  and  medi- 
aeval times  as  wholly  unsuited  to  the  present  needs  of  the 
majority  of  the  people.  To  the  94  per  cent  of  pupils  who 
believe  that  they  cannot  afford  four  years  at  high  school 
something  should  be  offered  at  the  start  which  clearly  will  be 
of  value  to  them  in  the  coming  life-work. 

Complete  election  in  the  first  year  of  high  school  surely 
increases  the  attendance.  Evidence  is  on  every  hand.  Two 
years  after  the  introduction  of  the  new  system  in  the  public 
high  school  at  G-alesburg,  Illinois,  the  school  building  had  to  be 
more  than  doubled  to  accommodate  the  applicants  for  admis- 
sion. Formerly  one  pupil  out  of  eleven  in  the  lower  schools 
entered  the  high  school  and  thirty-six  graduated;  two  years 
later,  one  out  of  five  entered  high  school  and  ninety  graduated. 
The  one  great  cause  of  these  increases  was  the  elective  system. 

There  is  another  important  advantage  of  the  elective  system 
which  is  frequently  overlooked.  Many  are  kept  in  school 
through  the  entire  course  who  do  not  take  the  college  pre- 
paratory studies,  but  who  afterward  decide  to  go  to  college. 
The  pupils  thus  influenced  to  continue  their  education  would 


APPENDIX  589 

& 

early  have  been  driven. out  of  school,  had  they  not  been  per- 
mitted to  elect  a  course  which  seemed  to  them  suited  to  their 
needs. 

Having  already  carried  this  paper  to  what  may  seem  an 
unnecessary  length,  I  shall  not  add  a  detailed  conclusion. 
The  sixfold  argument  in  favor  of  the  complete  elective  system 
in  public  high  schools,  which  it  has  been  my  purpose  to  prove, 
is  carefully  outlined  in  the  introduction.  To  that  I  refer  the 
reader  who  desires  a  summary  of  the  whole  argument. 


XXIX 

A  GOOD  FORENSIC 

Forensic  F 
Is  Ulster  Justified  in  her  Opposition  to  Home  Rule  ? 

The  interest  of  America  in  the  question  of  Home  Rule  for 
Ireland  has  been  deep  and  long  sustained,  indeed  remarkably 
so.  Unquestionably  much  of  this  is  traceable  to  the  politician 
who  makes  of  the  "  wrongs  of  Ireland  "  a  bait  for  the  Irish- 
American  vote.  But  there  is  a  deeper,  more  powerful  and 
more  enduring  reason  why  Americans  watch  with  unabated 
interest  the  progress  of  the  agitation  for  Home  Eule.  Their 
own  experience  in  government  has  taught  them  the  wisdom  of 
leaving,  so  far  as  possible,  the  administration  of  its  own  affairs 
to  each  local  group  j  They  have  realized  in  their  own  political 
system  the  strength  of  that  happy  adjustment  of  centripetal 
and  centrifugal  forces  known  as  the  "  federative  balance."  To 
the  American,  Home  Eule  means  that  measure  of  local  sover- 
eignty and  autonomy  that  the  American  Constitution  leaves 
bo  each  of  the  constituent  states  of  the  Union.  It  is  upon 
such  broad,  general  principles  that  American  opinion  expresses 
itself,  unanimously,  we  may  say,  in  favor  of  the  government 
of  Irishmen  by  Irishmen.  But  what  shall  Americans  say 


590  APPENDIX 

when  confronted  with  the  statement  that  it  is  not  England! 
alone  that  stands  in  the  way  of  Irish  self-government,  but 
that  it  is  opposed,  as  well,  by  a  great  body  of  the  Irish  them-' 
selves  who  insist  that  it  would  be  ruinous  to  them?     For  a 
long  time  the  opposition  of  Ulster  to  Home  Rule  has  been] 
frequently  and  forcibly  manifested.     It  is  scarcely  two  years 
since  a  mammoth  convention  was  held  in  Belfast  to  denounce 
the  Gladstonian  programme.    The  question  thus  becomes  com-] 
plicated  by  this  internal  difficulty,  and  it  becomes  important; 
to  determine  just  how  serious  it  is.     The  claims  of  Ulster] 
must  be  considered,  and  if  they  are  found  really  weighty,  we] 
must,  at  least,  hesitate  to  maintain  the  assumption  that  Home] 
Rule  is  absolutely  desirable.    What  are  these  claims  ?    Briefly] 
they  are  these:  (1)  Ulster  is  loyal  to  the  Union;  (2)  Ulster 
is  overwhelmingly  Protestant  and  should  not  be  subjected 
to  Koman  Catholic  domination;  (3)  Tried  by  every  test  ofi 
progress,  wealth,   education,  and  the  comfortable  dwellings] 
of  the  people,  Ulster  is  far  in  advance  of  the  other  parts  of  j 
Ireland.1     These  reasons  in  the  minds  of  those  who  put  them 
forth  lead  easily  and  inevitably  to  the  conclusion  that  it  woul< 
be  a  gross  wrong  to  disturb  the  present  status  by  the  legisla- 
tion embodied  in  the  Gladstonian  programme.    Even  accepting 
their  premises,  we  are  by  no  means  compelled  to  follow  them 
in  their  conclusion  ;  but  we  prefer  rather  to  examine  theii 
premises  and  determine  how  far  they  are  in  agreement  with 
the  actual  facts.     The  purpose  of  this  article  is  then  very 
clear.     It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  Home  Ruh 
per  se.     There  may  be  very  weighty  reasons  which  argue 
against  it.    There  may  be  weighty  reasons  which  Ulster  woulc 
be  justified  in  putting  forth  against  Irish  rule  of  Ireland  tha 
might  also  appeal  to  other  parts  of  the  country.     These  gen 
eral  reasons  do  not  concern  us  here.     We  are  to  consider  the 
special  reasons  assigned  by  Ulstermen  against  Home  Rule 
that  form  the  basis  of  their  opposition.     If  they  do  not  bear 

1  For  an  authoritative  expression  of  this,  see  Professor  Dicey's  article 
in  the  Contemporary  Reveiw,  July,  1892. 


APPENDIX  591 

the  light  of  investigation,  if  we  can  demonstrate  clearly  the 
insufficiency  of  the  evidence  upon  which  Ulstermen  rest  their 
case,  then  it  would  seem  that  Ulster  is  not  justified  in  her 
opposition  to  Home  Rule. 

The  first  reason  usually  assigned  is  that  Ulster  is  loyal  to 
the  Union  with  Great  Britain,  while  the  other  parts  of  Ireland 
are  disaffected.  .  It  might  be  urged  that  no  better  way  of 
showing  her  loyalty  is  possible  than  by  accepting  whatever 
shall  be  the  decree  of  Parliament  in  this  matter.  Instead  of 
that  there  are  all  sorts  of  dire  threats  as  to  what  will  happen 
if  Home  Rule  is  " forced"  upon  Ulster.  Such  conspicuous 
representatives  of  Unionism  in  Ulster  as  Colonel  Saunderson, 
M.P.,  and  Mr.  T.  W.  Russell,  M.P.,  have  not  hesitated  to  say 
that  Ulster  was  armed  ready  to  resist  rule  from  Dublin.  Even 
the  more  reserved  Professor  Dicey  broadly  hints  at  it.1  We 
lhave  been  assured  that  Ulster  will  offer  a  stubborn,  forcible 
[Opposition  to  the  attempt  to  institute  local  government  in 
Ireland.  And  yet  Ulster  is  loyal !  He  who  suspects  that 
Ulster's  loyalty  is  not,  after  all,  the  patriotic,  unselfish  thing 
that  it  is  assumed  to  be  will  have  his  suspicions  confirmed  by 
a  consideration  of  the  advantages  flowing  from  the  present 
status,  the  loss  of  which  would  inevitably  follow,  in  great  part, 
from  the  adoption  of  the  change  proposed.  In  the  Contem- 
\porary  Review  for  July,  1892,  appeared  a  striking  article  from 
the  pen  of  an  Irish  Presbyterian  minister  —  an  Ulsterman 
—  entitled  "  Ulsteria  and  Home  Rule."  The  article  bears  the 
stamp  of  genuineness,  its  simple,  direct,  forcible  statements 
carrying  conviction  at  every  point.  The  writer  begins  by  say- 
ing :  "  As  I  am  about  to  tear  the  veil  from  the  face  of  hypoc- 
risy, and  expose  the  cherished  bogeys  that  are  used  to  scare 
the  timid,  my  facts  will  be  impugned,  and  my  inferences 
derided,  and  the  displeasure  of  my  friends  will  wax  hot,  in 
proportion  to  the  fullness  of  knowledge  with  which  I  bring 
light  to  bear  on  their  arguments  and  proceedings."  It  is 

1  Contemporary  Review,  Vol.  LXII,  pp.  23-24. 


592  APPENDIX 

significant  that  his  article  was  never  answered.  The  Content/ 
porary  Review  gave  far  more  space  to  the  Home  Rule  ques- 
tion than  any  other  magazine,  one  article  calling  forth  another 
as  a  reply.  Yet  no  one  seemed  bold  enough  to  enter  the  lists 
against  the  Presbyterian  minister.  His  article  might  well  be 
quoted  from  at  length,  so  rich  in  material  it  is,  but  we  must 
content  ourselves  with  a  limited  use  of  it.  In  showing  the 
distribution  of  offices  in  Ireland  he  gives  the  following  table 
upon  the  authority  of  President  Hamilton's  History  of  the 
Irish  Presbyterian  Church. 

Roman     Episcopa-  Presby- 
Catholics       lians        terians 

Irish  Peerage 13  174 

Irish  Privy  Council 9  36 

Lieutenants  of  Counties 2  29           4 

Judges 6  11            1 

County  Court  Judges 6  14            2 

Resident  Magistrates 25  53            2 

Inspectors-General  of  Constabulary 1  4 

County  Inspectors  of  Constabulary 9  30 

District  Inspectors  of  Constabulary 37  188            5 

Royal  University  Senators 17  9            8 

Intermediate  Education  Commissioners      ...  4  3            2 

National  Education  Commissioners 10  6            3 

National  Secretaries  and  Heads  of  Departments  .5  31 

Board  of  Works,  Commissioners,  etc.    .     .  *-.     .  3  18 

Local  Government  Board, — Members,  Secretaries  6  16            1 

Superintendents  of  Lunatic  Asylums     ....  5  19 

Land  Commissioners,  Chief 3  2 

Land  Commissioners,  Assistant 7  3 

Is  it  a  matter  of  much  wonder  that  the  Protestant  majority 
of  Ulster  are  exceedingly  anxious  that  the  status  quo  be  not 
disturbed?  Of  the  810  governmental  offices  in  Ireland,  they 
and  their  Episcopalian  friends  in  other  parts  of  the  country 
hold  618,  i.e.  to  about  one  third  of  the  population  go  three 
fourths  of  the  offices.  The  "  Protestant  majority  "  is  hardly 


APPENDIX  598 

an  accurate  phrase  in  this  connection  since  in  the  distribution 
of  offices  the  Presbyterians  are  but  little  regarded,  although 
they  are  a  fourth  of  the  population  of  Ulster.1  Loyalty  is  a 
great  word,  but  it  sounds  very  cheap  when  used  as  Ulstermen 
use  it,  as  a  pretense  for  the  maintenance  of  a  grossly  unfair 
advantage.  One  is  reminded  of  Dr.  Johnson's  definition  of 
patriotism.  It  would  require  too  extended  a  historical  sur- 
vey to  show  how  Ulster  has  always  been  favored ;  indeed  it 
is  unnecessary,  as  scarcely  any  educated  man  is  unaware  of 
the  restrictions  imposed  upon  the  Catholic  portion  of  Ireland 
even  to  so  late  a  day  as  1870  when  Gladstone  succeeded 
in  disestablishing  the  Irish  Church.  Ulster  was  savagely 
against  Catholic  emancipation,  disestablishment,  land  bills, 
etc.,  just  as  it  is  to-day  against  Home  Rule.  It  was  "  loyal " 
then,  just  as  it  professes  to  be  loyal  now.  The  disaffection 
of  the  South  is  but  natural  when  one  considers  how  heavily 
the  burden  of  misrule  has  fallen  upon  them.2 

It  is  realized  by  the  Unionists  of  Ulster  that  the  settlement 
of  the  Irish  question  is  in  the  hands  of  their  fellow-Protestants, 
so  a  strong  appeal  is  made  to  them  on  the  score  of  religion.8 
Ulster  is  represented  as  overwhelmingly  Protestant,  and 
Americans  generally  have  been  led  to  believe  that  the  North 
of  Ireland  is  all  Protestant,  the  South  all  Catholic.  If  this 
were  true  there  would  seem  to  lurk  a  danger  in  Home  Rule. 
A  Dublin  Parliament  might  conceivably  —  though  with  the 

checks  proposed  in  Gladstone's  measure  the  probability  is  very 
remote  —  in  some  way  enact  legislation  that  would  oppress 
Ulster.  But  Gladstone's  checks  are  hardly  necessary,  as  we 
were  told  by  Hon.  Edward  Blake,  M.P.  —  himself  a  Protestant 

—  inasmuch  as  the  Protestant  majority  in  Ulster  but  little 
outnumbers  the  Catholics.  Oppression  which  would  work 
injury  to  almost  as  many  Catholics  as  Protestants  would 
hardly  be  entered  upon  under  any  circumstances.  For  fully 

1  Contemporary  Review,  Vol.  LXIII,  p.  779. 

2  See  Professor  Cairnes.     Political  Essays,     p.  198. 

3  Dicey.     Contemporary  Review,  July,  1892,  p.  1. 


594  APPENDIX 

46  per  cent  of  the  population  of  Ulster  is  Eoman  Catholic. 
The  entire  Catholic  population  of  Ulster  is  744,353  as  against 
a  Protestant  population  of  873,171.  The  following  table 
shows  clearly  the  relative  proportion:  — 

Ulster  Counties  Catholics  Protestants 

Donegal 142,639  42,572 

Tyrone 93,569  77,709 

Cavan. 90,329  21,350 

Monaghan 63,084  23,005 

Fermanagh 41,149  32,888 

Total    .     .     .  430,770  197,524 

Armagh 65,906  77,150 

Londonderry      ......       67,749  83,917 

Total    .     .     .     133,655  161,067 

Antrim  <  including  the  popu-  )  106,464  321,504 

Down    |  lous  city  of  Belfast  \  73,464  193,429 

Total    .     .     .  179,928  514,933 

Grand  total    .  744,353  873,524 

Gross  population  of  Ulster    .     .     .     1,617,877 
Gross  Protestant  majority     .     .     .        129,171 

It  is  clear  from  this  table  that  in  five  of  the  nine  counties 
the  Catholics  predominate,  in ,  two  others  they  fall  not  far 
below  the  Protestants  in  number,  while  in  two  counties  only 
—  Antrim  and  Down  —  is  there  a  large  and  decisive  Protes- 
tant majority.  Even  in  these  two  counties  the  Catholics  are  j 
a  third  of  the  whole  population.  It  is  only  in  the  northeast ; 
corner  of  the  province  —  about  one  fourth  of  the  whole  area  — 
that  the  Protestants  predominate.  A  recognition  of  these 
facts  ought  to  still  any  apprehension  for  the  safety  of  Ulster 
interests  under  a  Home  Rule  Parliament.  We  may  add  that 
of  the  thirty-three  members  of  Parliament  sent  from  Ulster 
seventeen  are  Home  Rulers  and  Nationalists. 

Clearly  then,  Ulster's  professions  of  loyalty  to  the  Union 
cannot  weigh  seriously  against  Home  Rule;  much  less  her] 


APPENDIX  595 

pretensions  of  fear  of  Koman  Catholic  ascendency,  since  we 
have  seen  how  nearly  evenly  balanced  are  the  numbers  adher- 
ing to  the  opposing  faiths.  If  Ulster's  opposition  is  to  be 
justified  it  must  be  in  the  remaining  reasons  urged  by  her 
against  Home  Rule.  Let  us  examine  them. 

It  has  become  a  commonplace  to  hear  the  progress,  wealth, 
and  education  of  Ulster  adverted  to,  and  it  has  been  accepted 
practically  without  question  that  in  these  things  Ulster  is 
far  in  advance  of  the  oilier  parts  of  Ireland.  One  would 
naturally  expect  from  the  advantages  she  has  enjoyed  that 
such  would  be  the  case  to  a  marked  extent ;  and  yet  too  much 
may  easily  be  granted,  and  so  it  has  been,  we  think,  in  the 
case  of  Ulster.  The  bearing  of  these  Unionist  claims  need 
hardly  be  pointed  out.  It  is  that  under  the  same  laws  which 
are  regarded  as  oppressive  and  unjust  by  the  other  parts  of 
Ireland,  Ulster  has  prospered  and  grown  wealthy,  from  which 
the  corollary  naturally  follows  that  a  better  condition  will 
result  to  the  South  not  from  any  measure  of  Home  Rule  but 
from  an  emulation  of  the  industry  and  provision  for  the 
future  shown  by  Ulster.  Moreover  it  would  be  political  fool- 
ishness, to  enact  legislation  to  benefit  the  unintelligent,  unpro- 
^ressive  portion  of  the  community  at  the  expense  of  the 
intelligent,  prosperous,  progressive  portion.  Here  again 
something  might  be  said  on  the  general  principles  involved, 
but  we  prefer  rather  to  test  the  truth  of  these  statements  of 
fact.  In  doing  so  we  avail  ourselves  of  the  information  con- 
veyed in  two  elaborate  articles  that  appeared  in  the  Contem- 
porary Review  for  June  and  July,  1893.  One  is  a  reply  to 
the  other.  By  using  one  as  a  check  against  the  other  we 
should  be  able  to  get  pretty  near  the  truth.  We  shall  put 
forward  no  statement  from  the  one  clearly  controverted  by 
the  other,  and  as  the  reply  was  from  the  Unionist  standpoint, 
the  danger  of  over-statement  cannot  be  great. 

First  as  to  the  progress  of  Ulster  in  the  matter  of  popula- 
tion. —  From  tables  to  which  both  writers  agree  it  is  apparent 
that  since  1841  Ulster  has  actually  lost  32.2  per  cent  of  her 


596  APPENDIX 

population.     The  loss  by  decades  is  shown  in  the  following 
table  :  — 

Census  Periods  Population  Decrease 

1841 -  ...  2,386,373 

1851 2,011,880  374,493 

1861 1,914,236  97,644 

1871 1,833,228  81,008 

1881 1,743,075  90,153 

1891 1,619,814  123,261 

Total  decrease  since  1841    766,559 

Ireland  as  a  whole  has  lost  since  1841  43.26  per  cent  of 
her  population.  In  the  last  decade  1881-1891  Ulster  lost 
more  than  a  third  more  than  in  the  preceding  decade.  Let 
us  look  into  the  loss  a  little  more  carefully,  and  see  how  much 
of  it  is  due  to  emigration,  an  important  consideration  when 
one  remembers  that  from  a  prosperous  country  emigration  is 
scarcely  ever  very  brisk.  In  the  forty  years  from  1851  to 
1891  3,742,746  people  left  Ireland  as  emigrants.  Of  these 
Ulster  furnished  999,135,  or  more  than  one  fourth.  The  dis- 
tribution is  as  follows :  — 

Decade  ending  Emigrants 

1861,  March  31 341,261 

1871,       "       " 201,240 

1881,      "       " 240,110 

1891,       "       » 216,524 

It  would  seem  from  this  showing  that  so  far  as  the  growth  of 
population  is  concerned  the  evidence  points  toward  a  decline 
rather  than  the  other  way.  It  will  be  asked,  however,  how 
are  the  Unionists  able  to  point  to  any  advance  in  this  direction. 
They  dp  it  by  calling  our  attention  to  Antrim,  the  county  in 
which  the  greater  part  of  Belfast  is  situated.  Belfast  has 
made  rapid  progress  —  from  75,308  in  1841  to  221,600  in 
1881  and  273,055  in  1891.  Apart  from  Belfast,  however, 
every  Ulster  county  shows  a  decrease  in  population. 


APPENDIX  597 


Counties 

Antrim  (part  of  Belfast  excluded) 
Down        "    "      "             " 

Popul. 
1841 

290,428 
361,446 
243,158 

Popul. 

1881 

237,738 
248,190 
129,476 

Popul. 
1891 

215,229 
224,008 
111,917 

Decrease 
1881-1891 

22,509 
24,182 
17  559 

296,448 

206,035 

185,635 

20  400 

156,481 

84,879 

74,170 

10  709 

222,174 

164,991 

152,009 

12  982 

200,442 

102,748 

86,206 

16,542 

Tyrone  . 

312,956 

197,719 

171,401 

26,318 

The  total  population  of  Antrim  and  Down,  Belfast  included, 
was  in  1881  694,050 ;  in  1891,  695,187.  The  gain  in  Belfast 
was  but  little  more  than  sufficient  to  keep  the  whole  number 
ap.  Let  us  recall,  in  this  connection,  the  fact  that  there  is  not 
a  single  country  of  Europe,  no  matter  how  depressed  and  down- 
trodden it  may  be,  that  fails  to  show  an  increase  of  population.1 
We  must  anticipate  the  objection  that  is  likely  to  be  made 
here.  It  may  be  urged  that  the  great  loss  to  Ulster  has  come 
through  emigration  from  the  Celtic  and  Catholic  portions. 
A  glance  at  the  tables  on  p.  594  and  on  this  page  convinces 
one  that  this  is  not  true.  Let  us  admit  that  the  North  has 
not  lost  so  greatly  as  the  South,2  but  let  us  also  remember 
that  this  is  to  be  explained  in  large  part  by  the  more  favorable 
circumstances  always  enjoyed  by  Ulster.  But  while  giving 
due  recognition  to  this  fact,  the  broad  truth  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  Ulster,  boasted  Ulster,  has  lost  steadily  and  seri- 
ously in  population  —  in  half  a  century,  32  per  cent.  It  is 
impossible  to  reconcile  this  fact  with  the  claim  to  that  unusual 
prosperity  so  invariably  attributed  to  Ulster  by  Unionist 
orators.  On  the  other  hand  the  figures  indicate  a  grievous 
decline,  but  little  less  grievous  than  that  recorded  for  other 
parts  of  Ireland. 

So  much  for  the  question  of  population.  Let  us  turn  our 
attention  to  the  figures  relating  to  agricultural  holdings  in 
Ulster  and  the  rest  of  Ireland,  and  see  if  they  indicate  th: 

1  Marshall.     Principles  of  Political  Economy,  Vol.  I.     p.  249. 

2  Cf .  table  at  the  head  of  the  page. 


598  .      APPENDIX 

great  prosperity  for  the  former  generally  assumed.  The  total 
population  on  agricultural  holdings  for  each  province  of  Ireland 
is  as  follows l :  — 

Ulster 1,019,168 

Minister 762,716 

Connaught .  629,196 

Leinster 567,390 

Taking  into  account  the  value  of  the  holdings,  the  percentages 
per  province  are  as  follows 2 :  — 

Over  £15  Under  £15 

ratable  value        ratable  value 

Leinster 42.6  67.4 

Munster 41.8  58.2 

Ulster 31.2  68.8 

Connaught 13.4  86.6 

Ulster  here  comes  third,  having  a  very  low  percentage  of  hold- 
ings over  £15  ratable  value.  She  is  third  again  in  holdings 
exceeding  £100  ratable  value,  being  preceded  by  Leinster 
and  Munster  whose  populations  are  much  smaller.  These  are 
the  figures :  — 

POPULATION  ON  AGRICULTURAL  HOLDINGS 


Over  £300 

38,313 
22,968 
16,353 
11,427 

Let  us  look  further  at  the  acreage  of  the  holdings.  Again 
we  find  that  in  a  table  showing  the  number  of  holdings  above 
fifty  acres  Ulster  comes  third. 

1  Contemporary  Review,  Vol.  LXIII,  p.  773. 
*Idem.    (Table  60,  General  Report.) 


Leinster 

Over  £100 
not  exceeding 
£200 

.     .     49,341 

Over  £200 
not  exceeding 
£300 

21,382 

Munster        . 

.     50,250 

15,549 

Ulster  .... 

.     .     .     44,241 

12,523 

Connauerht    . 

12,601 

4,925 

APPENDIX  599 

For  1890  50-100  acres  100-200  acres  200-500  acres  Over  500  acres 

Leinster  ....     13,886  6917  2803  396 

Munster  ....     22.281  9264  2822  384 

•      Ulster      ....     14,115  3677  1030  269 

Connaught  .     .     .      6,289  3167  1718  545 

From  the  agricultural  standpoint,  then,  Ulster's  position  is 
jfar  from  being  the  superior  one  usually  assigned  her  without 
question.  Instead  her  position  is  decidedly  inferior,  looking 
kt  Ireland  as  a  whole.  And  all  this  despite  the  unusual  privi- 
leges as  to  landholding  enjoyed  by  her. 

Having  examined  the  character  and  value  of  the  agricul- 
|tural  holdings  in  the  various  provinces  of  Ireland,  we  may 
(turn  for  another  instructive  comparison  to  the  statistics 
[relating  to  houses.  The  Report  furnishes  this  table  showing 
the  sort  of  accommodation. 

1st  Class  2d  Class  3d  Class  4th  Class 

Leinster 7.4  50.9  37.7  4.0 

Munster 5.1  50.2  39.1  5.6 

Ulster 5.1  49.5'          43.2  2.2 

Connaught 3.1  41.4  51.8  3.7 

The  inference  from  this  statement  is  very  clear,  and  again 
indicates  a  condition  contrary  to  that  generally  assumed.  It 
may  be  argued  that  Ulster's  percentage  is  brought  down  by 
the  poverty  of  certain  districts,  such  as  Donegal.  In  reply  it 
heed  only  be  said  that  the  other  provinces  have  also  their 
ijoor  districts.  But  if  this  be  not  specific  enough,  it  may 
(be  shown  that  Down  and  Antrim,  the  peculiarly  Protestant 
pounties  of  Ulster,  and  those  whose  prosperity  is  most  con- 
fidently assumed,  fall  below  six  other  Irish  counties  in  the 
percentage  of  first-class  house  accommodation.1  It  may  be 
paid,  however,  that  the  second-class  houses  ought  to  be 
ncluded  in  order  that  the  real  degree  of  comfort  in  housing 
jn joyed  by  Ulster  may  be  rightly  appreciated.  Let  us  grant 
;his  an(\  see  what  sort  of  story  the  figures  tell. 

1  Colclough.     Contemporary  Review,  Vol.  LXIII,  p.  771. 


600 


APPENDIX 


Counties^  Percentages 

1st  and  2d  class 

Wicklow      ....  68.8 

Carlo  w 66.2 

Down 66. 

Dublin 64.5 

Kilkenny      ....  64.4 

Tipperary     ....  61.9 

Waterford    .     .     .     .  61.6 

Cork 60.5 

Wexford       ....  60.2 

Fermanagh  ....  59.9 

Antrim 58.9 

Westmeath  .     .     .     .  58.3 

Clare 56.7 

Longford      ....  56.7 

Armagh 55.6 

Queen's 55.5 


Counties 


Percentages 
1st  and  2d  class 

Leitrim 55.5 

King's 55.4 

Monaghan    ....  55.3 

Sligo 54.6 

Cavan 54.5 

Londonderry     .     .     .  53.5 

Limerick      ....  52.3 

Tyrone 51.5 

Kildare 50.4 

Meath 50.4 

Roscommon      .     .     .  49.5 

Louth 48.9 

Gal  way 38.4 

Kerry 38.4 

Donegal 37.3 

Mayo 24.4 


This  table  clearly  indicates  the  position  of  Ulster  counties. 
In  neither  first-  or  second-class  houses  does  Ulster  head  the; 
list.  We  find  Down  in  third  place,  while  Antrim,  where  thd 
Catholics  form  only  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  population,1 
is  below  Fermanagh,  where  they  form  fifty-six  per  cent.  This 
ought  to  be  sufficient  answer  to  the  suggestion  that  the  poofl 
showing  made  by  Ulster  is  traceable  to  the  Catholic  portion^ 
of  the  province. 

After  this  showing  as  to  population,  agricultural  holdings 
and  housing,  we  need  not  be  surprised  if  there  remains  some- 
thing to  be  said  on  the  questions  of  wealth  and  education! 
It  would  be  wearisome  to  go  into  these  with  the  detail  which] 
seemed  desirable  and  necessary  in  the  consideration  of  thd 
other  questions.  Moreover  the  student  of  finance  learns  soons 
to  know  that  the  apparent  meaning  of  a  table  of  figures  on 
a  financial  question  is  often  different  from  the  real  meaning, 
which  can  only  be  discovered  by  "  reading  between  the  lines,"; 
as  it  were.  Nevertheless  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
the  real  indications  of  the  figures  we  shall  quote  are  those 


1  Ulster  counties  in  italics. 


APPENDIX 


601 


rhich  at  first  glance  seem  obvious ;  for  the  figures  are  for 
uch  broad,  general  facts  that  error  is  scarcely  possible.  We 
hall  take  the  ratable  valuation  of  the  four  Irish  provinces, 
nd  determine  the  amount  per  inhabitant  in  each  province. 

Population  Ratable  Valuation 

1891  valuation  per  head 

Leinster 1,187,760  £4,756,002  £4    Os.  Id. 

Munster 1,172,402  3,373,242  2  17      7 

Ulster 1,619,814  4,468,591  2  13    10 

Connaught  ....        724,774  1,435,761  1  19     7 

Ulster  is  here  again  third,  despite  its  large  excess  of  popu- 
ation  over  that  of  either  of  the  other  provinces.  Another 
ndication  of  the  relative  standing  of  the  provinces  is  found 
n  the  table  giving  the  percentage  of  ratings  over  £20  in  the 
arious  Irish  counties. 


No.  of  No.  per 

County  ratings  1000  of 

over  £20  the  popul. 

Fermanagh  .     .     .  2891          39 

Louth 2500          35 

Longford.  .  .  .  1794  34 
Armagh  ....  4484  31 
Monaghan  .  .  .  2651  31 
Tyrone  ....  4675  28 
Londonderry  .  .  4311  28 
Cork  (West  Riding)  4219  28 
Clare  .....  3361  27 
Cavan  .  .  .  .2611  23 
Roscommon .  .  .  2450  21 

Galway    ....  4327          20 

Kerry 3628  20 

Leitrim  and  Sligo  .  2701  16 

Donegal  ....  2798  15 
Mayo 2196  10 


It  is  very  clear  from  this  table  that  in  not  one  of  the  Ulster 
ounties  is  the  number  of  ratings  over  £20  equal  to  five  or 
lore  for  every  hundred  of  the  population ;  in  only  one  are 

1  Ulster  counties  in  italics. 


No.  of 

No.  per 

County1 

ratings 

1000  of 

over  £20 

the  popul. 

)ublin 

.      .      .   9653 

64 

death 

4885 

63 

Kilkenny 

.     .     .  5108 

59 

rVicklow  . 

.     .     .  3470 

56 

Vestmeath 

.     .     .  3564 

54 

'arlow     . 

.     .     .  2092 

51 

)ork  (East 

Riding)  9950 

50 

Mpperary 

.     .     .  8677 

50 

Vexford  . 

.     .     .  5515 

49 

Lildare     . 

.     .     .  3362 

48 

nmerick  . 

.     .     .  7405 

46 

ueen's    . 

.     .     .  2907 

45 

)own 

.  9575 

44 

ing's       . 

.     .     .  2817 

43 

7aterford 

.     .     .  4252 

43 

ntrim     . 

.     .     .  8104 

39 

602  APPENDIX 

they  above  four  for  every  hundred.  Were  we  to  indicate  the 
returns  made  from  the  income  tax,  the  same  relative  positions 
would  be  found  given  to  the  four  provinces.  But  certainly, 
sufficient  evidence  has  already  been  brought  forward  to  show 
the  utter  untenableness  of  the  claim  that  Ulster  ranks  above 
her  sister  provinces  in  'the  matter  of  wealth. 

There  remains  but  one  more  item  to  be  considered,  the 
question  of  education.  It  is  the  uniform  practice  of  Unionist 
speakers  to  claim  for  Ulster  a  far  higher  rate  of  popular 
education  than  in  the  other  parts  of  Ireland.  Let  the  census 
answer. 

Percentages  of  persons  > 
who  read  and  write   I 

Leinster 74.6 

Munster 71.7 

Ulster 70.7 

Connaught 61.8    • 

Here  again  we  must  anticipate  an  objection  that  is  likely 
to  arise.  It  may  be  said  that  Ulster's  poor  showing  is  due  to< 
the  great  illiteracy  of  the  Catholic  portion  of  the  population.) 
But  there  seems  to  be  no  adequate  reason  why  the  Catholic! 
of  Ulster  should  be  more  illiterate  than  the  Catholics  of  othefl 
parts  of  Ireland.  Certainly  we  have  never  seen  any  assignedJ 
If  there  is  not,  why  should  not  the  presumed  better  condition! 
of  the  Protestant  population  lessen  the  average  of  illiteracy,] 
and  put  Ulster  in  the  front  rank,  instead  of  the  third? 

We  have  gone  into  a  consideration  of  the  third  claim  made 
to  justify  Ulster's  opposition  to  Home  Eule  at  much  lengthj 
for  it  is  one  which  cannot  be  satisfactorily  dealt  with  hastilyJ 
It  needs  a  thorough  consideration  of  facts  and  figures  to  com 
bat  the  assumption,  so  constantly  and  so  confidently  made,  ofl 
Ulster's  superiority  in  the  questions  of  population,  wealth, 
education,  etc.  We  think  it  is  abundantly  evident  from  what 
has  been  shown  that  Ulster's  opposition  to  Home  Rule  can 
find  no  sort  of  justification  on  any  of  the  grounds  alleged; 
in  her  behalf.  Her  "loyalty"  is  but  a  pretense  for  thd 


APPENDIX  603 

maintenance  of  an  unfair  advantage,  her  overwhelming  Protes- 
tantism a  myth,  her  boasts  of  superiority  in  population,  wealth, 
education,  and  the  comfortable  dwellings  of  the  people  flatly 
contradicted  by  the  actual  facts.  Her  position  gives  her  no 
sort  of  claim  to  dictate  to  the  rest  of  Ireland  what  shall  be 
the  form  of  its  government.  Home  Rule  may  be  a  serious 
political  mistake.  While  we  do  not  think  so,  we  candidly 
admit  that  it  will  be  only  a  partial  settlement  of  the  Irish 
question,  whose  solution,  difficult  and  trying  as  it  must  prove 
to  be,  will  fall  to  the  Irish  themselves.  The  event  may  justify 
the  fears  of  those  who  antagonize  Home  Rule  at  the  present 
time.  We  have  not  attempted  to  consider  this,  for  our  prob- 
lem has  been  simply  to  examine  the  grounds  upon  which  the 
ispecial  opposition  of  Ulster  is  based.  We  have  found  them 
wanting  in  every  respect,  and  freely  and  emphatically  express 
our  conclusion  that  Ulster  is  not  justified  in  her  opposition  to 
Home  Rule. 

XXX 

A  PERSUASIVE  FORENSIC 

Forensic  G- 

Should  there  be  a  Reform  in  our  Pension  System  ? 
(To  be  read  before  a  G.  A.  R.  Post) 

It  has  been  said  that  the  pension  system  is  one  which  can- 
not be  discussed  with  freedom  by  the  leaders  of  opinion  in 
either  political  party,  by  men  who  did  not  serve  in  the  army 
or  navy,  by  the  new  generation  who  have  inherited  the  results 
of  the  war  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  nor  even  by 
those  who  served  in.  the  army  or  navy,  but  who  are  fortunate 
enough  to  escape  being  wounded,  or  suffering  from  disease. 
So  deeply  seated  is  the  desire  to  honor  and  rightly  reward 
those  who  have  suffered  in  the  service  of  their  country,  that 


604  APPENDIX 

all  of  these  classes  of  citizens  instinctively  feel  a  delicacy  ii 
taking  a  position  on  the  subject  of  pension  legislation  which 
will  give  an  excuse  to  any  man  who  has  suffered  to  point  to 
them  and  say  :  "  You  are  not  with  us  because  you  are  not  of  us. 
We  have  suffered  in  the  service  of  our  country,  you  have  not : 
you  are  ungrateful."  This  feeling  is  a  strongly  controlling 
one,  and  I  confess  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  for  me  an 
exceedingly  difficult  task  to  address  you  upon  this  subject, 
realizing  as  I  do  how  presumptuous  is  the  undertaking.  It  is 
a  task  which  should  fall  to  some  one  who  has  stood  in  the  ranks 
and  followed  the  old  flag  in  the  dark  days  of  the  country's  dan- 
ger —  some  one  who  has  earned  the  right  to  speak,  as  I  have 
not.  What,  then,  is  my  excuse  for  speaking  ?  Simply  this,  I 
come  before  you  as  one  who  has  given  some  considerable 
study  to  current  political  questions ;  in  the  course  of  this 
study  it  has  fallen  to  me  to  investigate  the  pension  system 
and  its  workings.  At  the  outset,  I  confess  to  you,  gentle- 
men, that  this  investigation  has  resulted  in  some  painful  and 
startling  revelations.  So  lamentable  did  I  find  the  extent 
of  the  evils  which  have  grown  up  about  the  system  that  it] 
seemed  to  me  that  ignorance  of  them  alone  explained  the 
apathy  of  the  public  generally,  and  of  the  old  soldiers  espe- 
cially, upon  a  subject  of  vital  importance  to  the  whole  country. 
It  seemed  to  me  that  if  the  old  soldiers  themselves  could  be 
brought  to  a  realization  of  the  present  condition  of  the  sys- 
tem with  which  their  interests  and  their  honor  are  so  inti- 
mately bound  up  they  would  not  hesitatingly  or  tardily  set 
about  to  secure  the  eradication  of  the  evils.  I  am  sure  that 
every  one  of  you  earnestly  desires  that  the  pension  roll  shall 
be  a  roll  of  honor,  that  it  be  jealously  guarded  from  all  taint, 
of  corruption  and  fraud.  Secure  in  that  belief  I  feel  that 
what  I  have  to  say  will  cause  you  to  forget  the  presumption 
of  the  speaker,  and  bear  with  him  patiently  in  the  ungrateful 
task  he  has  before  him.  I  need  hardly  remind  you  of  the 
exalted  position  you  hold  in  the  minds  of  all  your  fellow-citi- 
zens. The  memorial  services  which  we  witnessed  but  a  few 


APPENDIX  605 

weeks  ago  have  a  peculiar  beauty  of  their  own.  They  mark 
in  many  respects  the  most  interesting  of  our  anniversaries. 
They  bring  back  to  us  the  hours  of  the  country's  peril  and 
of  its  new  birth.  They  commemorate  deeds  of  bravery  and 
devotion  which  it  is  our  pride  and  joy  to  recall.  They  break 
in  upon  our  busy  and  calculating  lives  with  inspiring  memories 
of  heroism  and  self-sacrifice.  But  will  Memorial  Day  always 
keep  its  dignity  and  its  charm  ?  Is  there  no  danger  that  these 
hours  may  lose  their  sanctity  and  the  glowing  eulogies  we 
utter  become  an  empty  and  hollow  mockery  ?  It  is  a  painful 
thing  to  say,  gentlemen,  but  the  truth  shall  not  be  disguised. 

Whenever  the  people  shall  come  to  look  upon  the  Grand 
Army  as  an  organization  whose  purpose  in  great  part  is  to 
secure  pension  legislation  from  Congress,  to  secure  for  its 
members  a  reward  from  the  national  treasury,  then  will  there 
be  the  danger  that  the  soldier's  worth  be  underestimated,  his 
past  services  but  faintly  remembered,  and  the  honor  that  is 
his  due  be  reservedly  and  grudgingly  given.  Is  there  danger 
that  the  people  may  come  to  take  this  view?  Frankly  I  say 
that  there  is,  in  my  opinion.  The  people  are  not  discrimi- 
nating, and  the  evils  that  they  see  attaching  to  the  pension 
system  will,  in  great  part  at  least,  be  laid  by  them  at  the 
door  of  those  for  whose  benefit  that  system  is  maintained. 
This  may  be  a  grave  injustice,  and  yet  it  is  within 'your 
power  to  guard  against  it,  by  boldly  throwing  your  influence 
on  the  side  of  just  legislation  and  honest  administration  of 
the  laws.  That  you  will  do  so,  I  have  not  the  slightest 
doubt,  when  you  come  to  realize  the  gravity  of  the  situation 
and  the  need  for  prompt  and  energetic  action. 

Of  the  general  character  of  our  pension  system  I  need  say 
nothing  as  it  is  familiar  to  you  all.  I  wish  first  to  point  out 
some  reasons  which  are  leading  people  to  consider  the  ques- 
tion, and  then  to  point  out  some  of  the  more  flagrant  evils 
that  have  come  to  be  identified  with  the  system. 

We  are  facing  to-day  the  most  unfavorable  condition  of 
national  finances  that  has  confronted  us  for  a  long  period,  a 


606  APPENDIX 

condition  which  calls  loudly  for  an  economical  administration 
of  the  government  and  a  material  reduction  of  expenditures. 
The  surplus  which  a  few  years  ago  was  a  bone  of  contention 
has  vanished  and  in  its  place  has  appeared  a  deficit  which 
has  made  it  necessary  for  Secretary  Carlisle  to  resort  to  the 
questionable  expedient  of  issuing  bonds.  I  need  not  remind 
you  how  bitter  was  the  criticism  of  this  action,  of  the  unavail- 
ing attempts  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  to  prevent  the  issue, 
and  of  the  unwillingness  of  the  Democratic  Congress  to  assume 
responsibility  for  the  action.  These  facts  are  fresh  in  all 
our  minds.  With  the  enormous  revenues  enjoyed  by  the 
government  the  people  ask  where  all  the  money  goes,  and  it 
is  found  that  in  an  annual  budget  of  nearly  half  a  billion  dol- 
lars almost  a  third  is  set  aside  for  the  payment  of  pensions, 
a  sum  so  vast  that  we  may  well  pause  in  astonishment  at  the 
figures.  For  such  an  enormous  expenditure  one  seeks  in  vain 
for  any  precedent.  In  1891  France  paid  for  military  and 
naval  pensions  $30,000,000;  Germany,  $13,000,000;  Austria, 
$12,245,000;  Russia,  $18,000,000;  England,  $25,000,000 
(including  the .  pay  of  general  officers  and  th'e  retired  pay). 
From  but  thirteen  millions  in  1866  the  pension  expenditure 
has  run  up  to  165  millions  in  the  present  year,  a  sum  in 
excess  of  the  cost  of  maintaining  any  of  the  great  standing 
armies  of  Europe.  Moreover  under  the  law  of  1890,  with 
whose  provisions  you  are  all  familiar,  it  is  estimated  that  the 
annual  expenditure  must  soon  rise  to  $200,000,000  or  more 
than  half  a  million  a  day.  Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that  pub- 
lic attention  is  turned  toward  the  question  ?  Now  let  me 
point  out  frankly  and  without  reserve  what  seem  to  me  the 
highly  objectionable  features  of  this  vast  ejfpenditure.  Car- 
ried to  its  present  extent  it  does  not  seem  to  me  truly  a  right- 
ful charity,  but  a  profuse  extravagance  to  catch  the  soldier 
vote.  By  this  I  do  not  mean  that  the  basis  of  gratitude  is 
entirely  wanting,  but  that  the  extension  of  pension  legisla- 
tion to  its  present  extraordinary  limit  has  come  not  from  a 
disinterested  attitude  on  the  part  of  Congress,  but  chiefly 


APPENDIX  607 

from  a  desire  to  secure  and  hold  the  favor  of  the  old  soldiers. 
General  Grant  believed  the  limit  had  been  reached  in  1880, 
and  yet  within  three  years  after  his  death  the  appropriations 
had  reached  three  times  the  amount  for  1880.  Let  any  one 
but  read  the  debate  in  Congress  on  pension  appropriations  — 
for  instance  the  most  recent  bill,  that  of  1890  —  and  he  can- 
not fail  to  see  through  the  flimsy  protestations  of  devotion  to 
the  soldier  cause.  Is  it  a  compliment  to  the  honorable  vet- 
eran to  have  the  nation's  expression  of  gratitude  become  the 
instrument  by  which  dishonest  politicians  seek  to  maintain 
their  hold  upon  their  offices  ?  Is  n't  it  rather  disgusting  to 
hear  the  soldier's  praise  sounded  in  vociferous  fashion  at  this 
late  day  by  one  who  in  the  troublesome  times  of  the  Civil 
War  was  a  notorious  Copperhead,  thoroughly  disloyal  to  his 
country  ?  Can  we  think  such  a  man  sincere  when  we  remem- 
ber that  in  a  few  months  he  is  to  go  before  the  legislature  of 
his  state,  where  old  soldiers  are  politically  powerful,  and  ask 
to  be  returned  to  the  Senate  ?  There  can  be  no  question  that 
your  past  Commander  in  Chief,  General  Burdett,  is  right  when 
he  ascribes  the  present  state  of  pension  legislation  largely 
to  "  the  engagements  and  promises  which  rival  parties  and 
politicians  seeking  the  soldier  vote  thought  it  necessary  to 
enter  upon  to  secure  party  or  personal  success." 

It  is  true  that  such  debts  as  the  nation  owes  its  defenders 
cannot  be  measured  in  dollars  and  cents  and  from  this  point 
of  view  any  payments  from  the  Treasury  might  be  considered 
small ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  it  cheapens  the  sense  of  patriot- 
ism to  suggest  that  such  debts  have  a  money  value,  or  that 
the  dollars  given  are  intended  as  a  full  requital  of  the  serv- 
ices rendered.  Had  this  been  your  conception  of  your  duty 
thirty  years  ago,  few  of  you,  I  am  sure,  would  have  left  your 
homes  for  the  battlefield,  and  there  would  have  been  few 
graves  for  you  to  strew  with  flowers  on  every  returning 
Memorial  Day.  A  sad  comment  on  our  Republic  would  it  be 
that  when  her  hour  of  peril  came,  her  defenders,  for  the 
first  time  in  the  world's  history,  had  calculated  the  cost  of 


608  APPENDIX 

their  sacrifices  before  throwing  themselves  into  the  struggle ; 
or  had  presented  their  bill  of  expenses  when  the  struggle  was 
over.  Fortunately  for  us  you  did  no  such  thing.  As  with 
all  brave  men  who  have  gone  before  you,  the  victory  of  the 
cause  for  which  you  fought  was  your  sufficient  recompense ; , 
.  and  the  provisions  for  your  welfare  which  the  nation  added 
afterwards  were  accepted  with  dignity  and  gratitude.  I  am 
firm  in  the  belief  that  the  blame  for  the  present  situation  is 
not  to  be  thrust  upon  the  soldier,  but  upon  his  professed 
"  friends  "  and  the  pension  attorneys,  whose  only  care  has 
been  to  reap  a  rich  harvest  by  pushing  "  claims  "  which  they 
have  sought  to  get  hold  of  in  every  possible  way. 

But  while  the  soldier  is  blameless  it  is  not  possible  that  he 
will  be  held  so.  The  people,  as  I  have  said  before,  are  not 
discriminating,  and  they  will  hold  you  responsible  for  the 
conditions  to  whose  making  you  either  did  not  contribute  at 
all,  or,  if  you  did,  contributed  unwittingly  and  unintention- 
ally. There  will  result  in  the  minds  of  others  a  deplorable 
depreciation  of  the  great  service  you  have  rendered  your 
country.  They  will  be  unable  to  reconcile  the  onslaught  on  i 
the  Treasury  with  disinterested  devotion  to  country,  and  the 
memory  of  the  soldier's  severe  trials  and  brave  struggles  will 
become  dimmed.  Nothing  is  more  unfortunate  than  this. 
The  veteran  should  be  revered  and  honored,  and  his  example 
serve  as  an  inspiration  to  the  men  of  to-day  to  give  them- 
selves freely,  regardless  of  what  the  sacrifice  may  be,  when 
our  country  may  have  need  of  their  services. 

But  I  must  not  dwell  too  long  upon  these  general  consid- 
erations, for  it  is  my  desire  to  put  before  you  with  some 
definiteness  the  defects  of  our  pension  system,  and  indicate, 
possibly,  in  what  way  its  -reform  might  be  brought  about. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  my  belief  that  the  pension  laws  should 
be  revised  and  more  safeguards  thrown  about  their  administra- 
tion. The  pension  laws  are  too  lax.  The  Act  of  June  27, 
1890,  provides,  among  other  things,  that  "all  persons  who 
served  ninety  days  or  more  in  the  military  or  naval  service 


APPENDIX  609 

of  the  United  States  during  the  War  of  the  Kebellion,  and 
who  have  been  honorably  discharged  therefrom,  and  who  are 
now  or  may  hereafter  be  suffering  from  a  mental  or  physical 
disability  of  a  permanent  character,  not  the  result  of  their  own 
vicious  habits,  which  incapacitates  them  from  performance 
of  manual  labor  in  such  a  degree  as  to  render  them  unable  to 
earn  a  support  shall  ...  be  placed  upon  the  list  of  invalid 
pensioners  of  the  United  States  and  be  entitled  to  receive  a 
pension  not  exceeding  $12  per  month,  and  not  less  than  $6 
per  month,  proportionate  to  the  degree 'of  disability  to  earn  a 
support."  I  would  have  you  note  that  the  disability  of  the 
applicant  need  not  at  all  be  due  in  any  way  to  his  service  as 
a  soldier,  and  that  but  ninety  days  are  requisite.  I  confess 
that  I  can  see  no  justification  for  the  giving  of  a  pension  on 
such  a  narrow  ground  as  this.  It  practically  throws  open  the 
doors  to  all,  for  what  might  be,  if  strictly  construed  and 
strictly  administered,  a  saving  clause  —  the  inability  to  earn 
a  support  —  is  practically  of  little  avail.  The  degrees  of 
inability  are  not  considered,  nor  the  actual  need  of  the  appli- 
cant, who  is  not  called  upon  to  say  whether  there  is  any 
j  necessity  for  his  asking  aid.  I  am  glad  to  say  that  the  injus- 
tice of  granting  pensions  for  mere  service  has  been  vehe- 
mently opposed  by  a  considerable  body  of  the  G.  A.  R.  Again 
as  the  law  is  administered  it  does  not  take  into  account  the 
fact  that  one  may  be  incapable  of  manual  labor  who  is  yet 
able  to  support  himself  quite  comfortably  by  intellectual  toil. 
I  need  hardly  remind  you  of  a  flagrant  case  of  this  sort  which 
only  recently  has  attracted  attention.  Judge  Long  of  the 
Michigan  Supreme  Court,  receiving  a  salary  of  $7000  per 
annum  for  his  services  on  the  bench,  applied  for  and  received 
a  pension  for  total  disability  —  $72  per  month.  The  present 
Commissioner  of  Pensions,  Judge  Lochren,  suspended  the 
pension,  but  was  forced  to  restore  it.  Another  case  is  that 
of  a  wealthy  manufacturer  right  here  in  Massachusetts  who 
receives  also  $5000  a  year  from  the  government  for  his  serv- 
ices as  a  Congressman.  Judge  Long  and  General  Draper 


610  APPENDIX 

are  but  conspicuous  examples  of  a  large  class  of  well-to-do 
men  who  think  it  no  sin  to  receive  an  unearned  stipend  from 
the  national  treasury.  It  is  disgusting  that  such  a  state  of 
affairs  should  exist,  but  alas  it  receives  all  too  much  encour- 
agement from  the  present  system. 

I  have  already  alluded  to  the  discreditable  influence  of  the 
pension  attorneys.  Let  me  quote  from  Lieutenant  Foote, 
founder  of  the  Society  of  Loyal  Volunteers.  He  says  :  "  As 
though  it  was  feared  that  those  who  volunteered  to  serve 
their  country  would  riot  volunteer  to  accept  the  bribe  thus 
offered  them,  sixty  thousand  pension  attorneys  have  been 
commissioned,  about  twenty  thousand  of  whom  are  in  active 
practice,  to  hunt  up  the  old  soldiers,  and  coax,  urge,  and 
tempt  them  to  make  oath  that  they  are  'unable  to  earn  a 
support  by  manual  labor.'  For  this  work  of  corrupting  the 
loyalty,  honor,  and  honesty  of  the  <  Boys  in  Blue '  the  gov- 
ernment offers  a  reward  to  the  pension  attorneys  of  ten 
dollars  each.  These  pension  attorneys  are  reenforced  by 
senators  and  representatives  in  Congress,  who  in  one  year 
have  made  154,817  requests  on  the  Commissioner  of  Pensions 
for  the  « condition  of  claims.'  "  Comment  upon  such  a  deplor- 
able picture  is  superfluous. 

The  defects  in  the  pension  laws  already  pointed  out  ought 
perhaps  to  be  sufficient  to  make  clear  the  need  of  reform,  but 
they  are  not  all  that  exist.  The  laws  place  a  premium  on 
dishonest  marriages  by  the  provision  that  a  woman  who  shall 
have  been  married  to  a  soldier  before  June  27,  1890,  shall, 
on  his  death,  be  entitled  to  a  pension.  Numberless  cases 
have  been  cited  where  young  and  robust  women  have  married 
old  and  decrepit  soldiers  merely  that  they  may  enjoy  the 
pension  which  would  fall  to  them  when  the  husband  dies; 
numerous  cases  have  been  cited  where  women  have  preferred, 
after  the  death  of  their  husbands,  to  lead  an  irregular  life 
rather  than  openly  to  enter  the  marriage  relation  again,  in 
order  that  they  might  retain  the  pension  which  the  gov- 
ernment was  giving  them.  "  The  extent  of  this  can  be 


APPENDIX  611 

j  imagined  when  it  is  noted  that  in  a  single  county  of  one  of  our 
Middle  States,  having  a  population  of  84,000  where  special 
I  inquiry  was  made  on  this  point  there  were  found  four  families 
I  of  illegitimate  children,  of  eight,  three,  and  three  children 
j  and  one  child  respectively,  whose  fathers  and  mothers  were 
|  living  and  whose  mothers  were  drawing  widows'  pensions. 
j  In  two  of  these  cases,  upon  the  pension  being  stopped,  the 
|  parents  promptly  married."     There  are  still  on  the  pension 
rolls  twenty  widows  of  the  Eevolution,  six  thousand  six  hun- 
1  dred  and  fifty-seven  widows  of  the  War  of  1812,  although 
I  there  were  but  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  survivors  of  that 
war.     I  am  sure,  gentlemen,  that  you  agree  with  me  that 
something  ought  to  be  done  to  rid  the  system  of  this  dis- 
honest and  demoralizing  practice. 

Not  only  are  the  pension  laws  strikingly  lax,  but  the  pro- 
visions for  their  administration  are  also  exceedingly  defective. 
They  do  not  require  that  the  evidence  supporting  the  appli- 
cant's claim  shall  be  given  under  such  safeguards  as  in  ordi- 
nary business  would  be  deemed  essential.  For  instance,  if 
the  applicant  can  give  no  better  testimony  that  of  two  of  his 
comrades  is  considered.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  submit  that  this 
gives  opportunity  for  collusion  and  fraud  which,  even  among 
yojir  honorable  body,  many  may  be  found  unable  to  resist. 
The  looseness  of  the  system  seems  an  invitation  to  an  evasion 
of  the  requirements.  The  soldier  is  made  to  feel  that  it  is 
only  a  little  technicality  that  stands  in  the  way.  Why  let  it 
defeat  the  evident  desire  of  the  government  to  deal  generously 
with  the  veteran  ?  There  is  so  little  investigation  of  the 
merits  of  claims  possible  under  the  plan  that  the  government 
has  been  made  the  victim  of  numerous  unfounded  and  exorbi- 
tant claims.  Instances  of  this  sort  doubtless  suggest  them- 
selves to  many  of  you.  Congressman  Warner  in  the  forum 
for  June,  1893,  cites  a  number  of  cases.  Let  me  repeat  one 
of  them.  A  veteran  pensioned  for  rupture  was  proved  to 
have  been  ruptured  before  the  war,  and  it  was  discovered 
that  he  had  been  personated  at  the  original  muster  by  a 


612  APPENDIX 

physically  sound  man,  whom  he  had  hired  for  $25  to  take 
his  place  for  the  occasion.  His  name  was  removed  from  the 
rolls  after  he  had  received  $2000.  Under  the  law  of  1890 
he  became  again  a  ward  of  the  nation  and  now  receives  $12 
a  month  for  total  disability  (from  the  rupture  which  occurred 
before  he  enlisted  and  to  conceal  which  and  to  get  into  the 
army  at  all  he  committed  perjury).  There  are  yet  other 
defects  in  the  system  of  procedure  in  pension  cases,  but  I 
need  not  weary  you  with  their  recital.  My  purpose  in  chief 
part,  will  have  been  accomplished  if  I  succeed  in  impressing 
you  with  the  vital  importance  of  the  subject.  Once  you  real- 
ize that,  I  am  sure  your  line  of  action  will  be  that  to  which 
patriotism  and  a  sense  of  high  honor  impel.  I  shall  call  your 
attention  to  but  one  more  aspect  of  the  pension  question, 
which  seems  to  me  to  call  not  for  reformation  only  but  for 
entire  abolition.  I  have  in  mind  the  private  pension  bill. 

The  private  pension  bill  (which  I  need  hardly  tell  you  is 
a  special  act  of  Congress  giving  to  a  certain  person  a  stipulated 
pension)  has  come  to  be  a  common  measure  in  Congress.  In 
the  fiftieth  Congress  no  less  than  four  thousand  two  hundred 
and  ninety-five  such  bills  were  introduced,  and  in  the  fifty -first 
Congress  the  number  was  up  to  six  thousand  four  hundred 
and  ninety-nine.  You  see  at  once,  gentlemen,  how  impossible 
it  is  that  there  should  be  any  adequate  consideration  of  their 
merits.  The  records  of  Congress  committees  are  enormously 
increased.  These  bills  are  introduced  indiscriminately  by 
Congressmen  who  are  often  ignorant  of  their  merits.  In  1892 
a  prominent  Southern  member  introduced  a  bill  to  restore  a 
soldier's  widow's  pension.  Investigation  showed  that  an  exact 
duplicate  of  this  bill  had  become  a  law  in  1891  and  that  the 
Pension  Bureau  had  been  unable  to  find  the  beneficiary.  The 
Congressman  was  forced  to  admit  that  he  knew  nothing  of  her, 
and  had  no  recollection  of  the  matter.  He  had  simply  reintro- 
duced  the  bill  as  a  matter  of  course,  without  any  question  as 
to  its  previous  history.  The  result  is  that  the  pension  granted 
to  Sarah  A.  Phelps  is  yet  without  a  claimant.  As  in  this 


APPENDIX  613 

instance,  so  scores  of  other  bills  are  reintroduced  without  any 
inquiry  as  to  whether  the  conditions  remain  to  justify  doing 
so.  Another  consideration  must  be  urged  by  way  of  condemna- 
tion of  the  special  act,  a  consideration  which  I  am  sure  will 
commend  itself  to  the  soldier  who  loves  his  flag.  It  is  that 
the  private  bill  provokes  a  feeling  of  resentment  in  the  minds 
of  the  less  favored  who  have  not  the  acquaintance  or  influence 
necessary  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  bill.  Here,  as  in  so  many 
other  cases  of  •political  action,  a  "  pull "  is  sure  to  give  its 
possessor  an  unusual  advantage.  It  may  be  well  asked  why 
there  should  ever  be  such  a  thing  as  a  private  pension  bill. 
We  are  told  that  it  is  to  enable  deserving  claimants  to  secure 
relief  denied  them  by  the  technicalities  of  the  Pension  Office. 
But  with  lax  and  extremely  liberal  laws  administered  in  the 
freest  sort  of  manner  is  it  probable  that  a  really  deserving 
claim  could  meet  with  difficulty  in  the  Pension  Office? 

I  have  pictured  to  you  some  of  the  evils  attaching  to  our 
pension  system,  and  I  have  done  so,  I  must  say,  with  a  sparing 
hand.  The  picture  might  be  darker,  I  regret  to  say,  but  as  I 
have  given  it  to. you  is  it  not  dark  enough  to  demand  your 
most  serious  attention  ?  Is  not  a  system  that  costs  annually 
$165,000,000  and  promises  to  cost  many  millions  more ;  that 
places  nearly  a  million  of  persons  in  an  attitude  of  dependence 
upon  the  national  government ;  that  degrades  loyal  and  patri- 
otic sentiment;  that  fosters  corruption  and  fraud  —  is  not 
such  a  system,  I  say,  in  need  of  reform?  And  are  not  you 
the  men  to  whom  we  should  first  look  to  take  up  the  task  of 
eradicating  the  evil  ? 

Gentlemen  of  the  G.  A.  R.,  you  have  a  new  duty,  requiring 
a  fine  courage,  a  true  perception  of  patriotism,  a  noble  loyalty, 
as  in  1861.  It  requires  you  to  defend  your  honor  from  the 
defamation  that  is  coming  on  it  unawares,  through  the  unholy 
greed  that  corrupts  men  who  have  made  use-  of  the  gratitude 
of  a  generous  people  and  your  silence  to  gain  their  selfish  ends. 
May  you  hold  the  memory  of  those  who  fell  by  your  side  as  a 
sacred  trust,  guarding  your  own  honor  with  a  jealous  pride, 


614  APPENDIX 

inspired  with  a  sense  of  loyalty  to  the  nation,  and  a  high  ideal 
of  the  true  dignity  of  American  citizenship.  Emphasize  the 
separation  that  exists  between  you  and  those  who  are  actuated 
in  their  clamor  for  pensions  by  the  lustful  greed  of  selfish 
gains.  Let  your  names  be  inscribed  upon  a  roll  of  honor  that 
shall  mean  to  all  who  see  it  that  you  were  loyal  when  loyalty 
required  courage,  that  you  were  honorable  when  dishonor  was 
made  profitable.  Then  you  shall  leave  a  record  that  shall 
teach  the  coming  generations  lessons  of  the  highest  and  most 
enduring  value.  Yours  is  a  glorious  past ;  the  present  affords 
you  another  glorious  opportunity  to  deepen  the  gratitude  of  .a 
thankful  nation  whose  preservation  was  your  work.  May  the 
beautiful  anniversary  which  we  have  so  recently  celebrated 
never  lose  its  ancient  charm,  but  rather  grow  more  beautiful 
and  more  tender  every  year  as  one  by  one  the  members  of 
the  Grand  Army  hear  the  silent  call  that  bids  them  welcome 
to  the  ranks  of  those  who  have  gone  before. 


XXXI 

AN  ARGUMENTATIVE  ESSAY 
Forensic  H 

The  Extermination  of  the  Gypsy  Moth 

Gentlemen : 

At  your  own  request  I  am  here  to-night  to  tell  you  about  the 
gypsy  moth  in  all  its  aspects.  Those  evils  which  we  escape  by 
precautionary  measures  of  prevention  we  can  never  realize  in 
their  full  content  until  we  receive  a  careful  explanation  of 
them.  It  is  for  this  explanation,  gentlemen,  that  you  have 
asked  because  you  have  heard  the  many  alarms  from  the 
farmers  of  the  east  relative  to  their  orchards  and  crops,  and 
because  you  have  also  heard  rumors  and  declarations  that  tell 
you  the  work  of  extermination  is  a  farce ;  that  it  is  the  result 


APPENDIX  615 

of  a  private  combination  to  draw  money  from  the  state ;  that 
the  work  as  done  now  is  clumsy,  so  that  less  is  accomplished 
than  might  be;  and  that  the  work  could  be  done  with  less 
expenditure.  These  are  grave  charges,  gentlemen !  Yet  you 
have  heard  them  thoughtfully  and  have  acted  wisely  —  you 
have  asked  that  the  danger  be  explained  before  declaring  that 
you  will  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  this  expenditure.  You 

I  realize,  gentlemen,  that  your  most  vital  interests  are  here  at 
stake ;  that  if  this  insect  be  only  half  as  bad  as  the  blackest 
stories  make  it,  you  will  have  to  deal  with  a  terrible  pest ; 
you  will  yourselves  have  to  protect  your  vegetables  in  the 

|  fields  and  guard  your  apple,  plum,  pear,  and  all  your  other 
trees.  I  am  here  to-night  to  tell  you  what  is  known  about 
this  insect,  to  explain  its  habits,  to  show  you  the  methods  of 
extermination  used ;  and  then  you  may  judge  for  yourselves 
whether  these  evils  will  come  if  the  moth  is  now  unheeded; 
whether  you  may  best  fight  the  insect  at  a  distance  or  on 
your  own  farms.  I  have  been  selected  to  give  you  these  facts 
because  I  have  had  experience  in  the  field  work,  and  because 
(although  I  am  not  personally  connected  with  the  Commission 
now)  I  have  made  a  thorough  study  of  the  subject.  I  know 
what  the  outsider's  impression  of  the  work  is.  He  sees  a  man 
looking  at  a  tree ;  he  watches  that  man  walk  very  slowly 
around  that  tree  looking  up  into  space  —  at  least,  so  it  appears 
to  him ;  but  he  does  not  know  what  that  workman  is  looking 
for  ;  if  he  were  shown  a  nest  or  a  pupa,  or  even  one  little 
caterpillar  as  the  result  of  a  day's  work  by  several  men,  he 
would  be  —  well,  enraged ;  he  would  cry  out,  "  I  tell  you  this 
whole  business  is  a  farce.  These  men  receive  two  dollars  a 
day  from  the  state,  and  they  do  nothing  ! "  His  arithmetic 
based  on  what  he  sees,  or  what  he  thinks  he  sees,  is  something 
like  this  :  "  If  it  takes  a  dozen  men  to  kill  one  caterpillar  in 
one  day,  how  long  will  it  take  the  three  hundred  men  employed 
by  the  state  to  kill  the  millions  of  caterpillars  they  tell  us  are 
here  ?  How  do  they  ever  expect  to  exterminate  th£  bug  ? " 
"  I  tell  you,"  he  concludes,  "  it 's  all  one  big  robbery." 


616  APPENDIX 

But,  gentlemen,  there  may  be  another  side  to  this.  To 
understand  it  let  us  consider  a  few  facts  about  the  habits  of 
the  insect  and  the  characteristics  that  make  it  dangerous. 

"  The  eggs  are  laid  in  the  summer,  soon  after  the  emergence 
of  the  moth,  in  round  or  oval  clusters  usually  containing  from 
four  to  five  hundred  eggs  (although  clusters  have  been  found 
that  contained  a  thousand  eggs),  and  are  covered  with  yellow 
hairs  from  the  body  of  the  female  moth.  These  egg  clusters 
are  usually  found  in  sheltered  places  on  the  bark  or  in  the 
crevices  of  trees,  stumps,  and  undergrowth ;  also  on  fences, 
buildings,  and  in  the  crevices  of  stone  walls  and  other  objects 
near  the  plants  or  trees  on  which  the  insect  feeds.  The  moth 
thus  passes  the  fall/  winter  and  early  spring,  in  the  egg. 
These  eggs  resist  very  strongly  the  action  of  the  elements, 
both  by  reason  of  their  hairy,  asbestos-like  covering  and 
because  of  their  own  nature.  Even  if  scraped  from  their 
places  and  exposed  to  the  severity  of  the  winter,  they  are 
not  destroyed.  They  hatch  in  the  latter  part  of  the  spring. 
When  first  hatched,  the  caterpillars  are  less  than  a  fifth  of  an 
inch  in  length ;  they  feed  on  plant  life  and  grow  larger  as 
they  pass  through  the  stages  of  molting.  There  are  usually 
five  molts,  never  are  there  more  than  seven.  I  have  seen 
these  caterpillars  reach  a  length  of  two  inches  or  more  with 
a  diameter  of  half  an  inch  —  surely  not  a  pleasant  thing  to 
have  drop  on  one  from  the  trees.  During  their  growth,  in 
June,  July,  and  early  August,  they  gather  in  the  daytime 
in  clusters  upon  trees  or  in  cavities  and  other"  hiding  places. 
When  fully  grown  this  caterpillar  sheds  its  outer  covering 
and  becomes  a  pupa  or  chrysalis.  This  usually  occurs  in 
July  or  August.  The  pupae  may  be  found  in  the  same  situa- 
tions as  the  eggs.  In  Massachusetts  the  insect  usually 
deposits  her  eggs  neat  the  abandoned  pupa  case,  and  within 
a  few  hours  after  emerging  from  it.  She  dies  soon  after. 
The  male  moth  is  a  rapid  flyer.  The  female  does  not  fly." 3 

1  See  House  Report  200,  pp.  3-4,  for  this  exposition  of  the  evolution 
and  following  statement  on  the  caterpillar. 


APPENDIX  617 

Gentlemen,  I  have  purposely  been  terse  in  this  description 
of  the  evolution  of  the  insect,  because  that  does  not  concern 
us  as  much  as  do  its  habits  of  feeding.  The  gypsy  moth  feeds 
only  when  in  the  larval  or  caterpillar  state.  In  Massachu- 
setts the  eggs  begin  hatching  about  April  20,  and  the  young 
continue  to  emerge  until  the  middle  of  June.  The  length  of 
larval  life  varies  somewhat  according  to  circumstances,  but 
probably  averages  at  least  ten  weeks ;  therefore  the  feeding 
season  in  this  country  lasts  about  four  months.  When  the 
caterpillars  are  first  hatched  from  the  eggs  they  are  light  in 
color  and  covered  with  whitish  hairs.  In  a  few  hours  they 
assume  a  dark  hue.  They  usually  remain  on  or  near  the  egg 
cluster  until  they  change  in  color,  and  should  the  weather 
be  cold  they  sometimes  remain  for  several  days  in  a  semi- 
torpid  condition  upon  the  egg  cluster.  If  the  temperature  is 
favorable  they  usually  search  for  food  before  they  are  twenty- 
four  hours  old.  Their  feeding  habits  are  so  uncertain  that  no 
rule  can  be  given  which  will  apply  to  individuals,  but  before 
they  are  half  grown  they  generally  begin  to  manifest  their 
gregarious  instincts.  During  the  first  few  weeks  of  their 
existence,  they  remain  most  of  the  time  on  the  leaves,  feeding 
mainly  on  the  underside.  At  that  time  and  for  the  rest  of 
their  existence  as  caterpillars,  they  spend  a  large  part  of  the 
day  clustered  in  sheltered  situations,  and  feed  principally  at 
night,  going  up  the  trees  and  out  on  the  branches  after  dark 
and  returning  before  daybreak.  Yet  when  they  are  so  abun- 
dant that  the  food  supply  is  insufficient  they  evince  much 
restlessness,  and  feed  in  numbers  during  all  hours  of  the  day 
and  night.  They  may  then  be  seen  hastening  to  and  fro,  both 
up  and  down  the  trees.  Those  who  have  fed  sufficiently  are 
at  once  replaced  by  hungry  newcomers,  and  the  destruction  of 
the  foliage  goes  on  incessantly. 

At  such  times  the  trunks  and  the  lower  branches  of  the 
trees  are  covered  with  a  moving  mass  of  caterpillars,  hurry- 
ing throngs  are  passing  and  repassing,  and  nearly  every  leaf 
or  denuded  stem  holds  up  one  or  more  of  the  feeding  insects. 


618  APPENDIX 

The  rustling  caused  by  their  movements  and  the  continual 
dropping  of  excrement  is  plainly  audible.  This  statement 
may  sound  exaggerated,  but,  gentlemen,  hundreds  of  people 
in  Maiden  and  the  surrounding  towns  testify  to  the  truth  of 
this :  let  me  give  you  one  or  two  of  their  statements.  One 
lady  says,  "  Many  a  time  I  have  swept  the  caterpillars  off  by 
the  dust-pan-full  from  the  under  pinnings  of  the  house "  ; 
another,  "A  few  years  ago  the  caterpillars  were  terrible  in 
Glenwood.  You  could  not  go  down  Myrtle  St.  without  get- 
ting your  shoulders  covered.  .  .  .  We  spent  hours  killing 
caterpillars,  but  there  seemed  to  be  two  to  every  one  we  killed." 
Except  when  in  great  numbers,  the  caterpillars  scatter  through- 
out the  trees,  eating  a  little  from  each  leaf,  as  for  example 
early  in  the  season  when  they  are  small  and  few  in  number. 
Then  their  ravages  are  scarcely  noticed,  but  as  they  grow  larger 
and  more  numerous,  their  inroads  on  the  tree  decrease  the 
foliage  area  night  by  night,  until  suddenly  all  the  remaining 
leaves  are  eaten,  and  the  tree  is  stripped  as  in  a  single  night. 

Gentlemen,  if  I  were  addressing  an  audience  in  the  city  I 
should  appeal  to  them  by  showing  the  effect  on  their  parks, 
their  summer  resorts,  their  wood  preserves  ;  I  should  paint  to 
them  the  actual  experience  of  West  Medford  in  1889,  when 
"  huge  hairy,  full-grown  caterpillars  were  constantly  dropping 
on  people  on  the  sidewalks  beneath  the  trees,  while  the  smaller 
larvae  hanging  by  invisible  threads  were  swept  into  the  eyes 
and  upon  the  faces  and  necks  of  the  passers ;  when  the  myriads 
that  were  crushed  under  foot  on  the  sidewalks  gave  the  village 
streets  a  filthy  and  unclean  appearance ;    and  when,  in  the  ] 
warm,  still  summer  nights,  a  sickening  odor  arose  from  the 
masses  of  caterpillars  and  pupae  in  the  woods  and  orchards." 
But,  gentlemen,  I  think  that  the  destruction  that  this  insect 
threatens  to  bring  on  your  orchards  will  be  of  greater  weight ! 
with  you.    The  gypsy  moth  is  known  to  destroy  the  foliage  of 
nearly  all  native  and  introduced  trees  and  plants  of  economic  j 
importance.     The  list  of  its  food  plants  includes  nearly  all  I 
evergreen  and  deciduous  trees,  most  bushes,  shrubs,  vines, 


APPENDIX  619 

% 

and  vegetables,  and  it  has  been  seen  to  eat  grass  and  grain. 
Whenever  the  caterpillars  become  numerous  they  move  slowly, 
devouring  nearly  every  green  leaf  and  bud  as  they  go.  They 
feed  during  a  much  longer  season  than  the  cankerworm  or  the 
tent  caterpillar.  In  the  months  of  June,  July,  and  August, 
1891,  trees  which  had  been  stripped  early  in  the  season  and 
whose  leaves  had  again  put  out  were  again  defoliated  by  these 
caterpillars,  and  kept  bare  all  summer ;  therefore  not  only 
was  all  prospect  of  a  first  harvest  destroyed,  but  many  trees 
were  killed  by  this  continual  defoliation. 

Yet  I  hear  some  one  ask,  "  How  do  the  farmers  in  Europe 
get  along?  Has  not  the  gypsy  moth  been  there  since  all 
time  ?  "  Yes,  gentlemen,  the  gypsy  moth  has  been  in  Europe 
from  time  immemorial.  European  farmers  simply  have  to  stand 
it.  They  do  their  little  best  to  keep  down  the  insect  on  their 
estates,  and  pocket  their  losses  in  the  years  of  great  devasta- 
tion as  best  they  can.  But  do  you  wish  to  become  accustomed 
to  it?  Do  you  wish  to  add  to  your  lesser  insect  enemies  a 
great  one  ?  Gentlemen,  my  time  is  short,  and  I  have  a  great 
deal  more  to  say,  yet  I  feel  that  I  must  read  you  a  letter  from 
Professor  Henry  of  the  School  of  Forestry,  Nancy,  France, 
dated  July  27,  1895.  He  says  :  —  "  The  gypsy  moth  is  well 
known  to  French  foresters.  This  caterpillar  is  a  plague  to  fruit 
trees,  oaks,  chestnuts,  lindens,  elms,  poplars,  and  other  trees, 
on  all  of  which  it  thrives.  In  1868,  more  than  one  hundred 
and  forty-eight  acres  of  oak  woods  were  entirely  stripped  by 
it.  It  was  so  common  in  1880  on  the  sides  of  Mount  Veuloux 
near  Avignon,  that  the  legions  of  caterpillars  covered  the 
ground  and  entirely  destroyed  vegetation.  In  Savoy,  it  made 
an  invasion  in  1887  upon  the  chestnut  and  fruit  trees.  There 
is  not  a  year  passes  in  which  the  caterpillars  do  not  show 
themselves  in  our  territory,  if  not  in  one  place  then  in 
another."  l 

Gentlemen,  this  letter  is  only  one  of  many  from  all  parts 
of  Europe.  Entomologists  in  Holland,  Russia,  Germany,  and 

i  Gypsy  Moth  Report,  1896.    p.  283. 


620  APPENDIX 

all  other  European  states  tell  us  the  same  thing,  if  we  take 
the  trouble  to  examine  their  works.  Notwithstanding  the 
general  damages  to  all  kinds  of  vegetation  in  Europe  the 
greatest  complaint  comes  from  the  fruit-growing  districts 
where  the  insect  shows  a  preference  for  the  foliage  of  fruit 
trees.  I  ask  you  again,  gentlemen,  do  you  wish  to  be  subject 
to  any  such  inroads  as  this  when  by  a  trifling  expenditure 
you  can  keep  it  from  you?  A  little  forethought  on  your 
part,  gentlemen,  will  keep  it  confined  where  it  is  now  in  a 
comparatively  small  area  bounded  on  the  north  by  Man- 
chester, Middleton  and  North  Heading,  on  the  west  by  Lex- 
ington and  Waltham,  and  on  the  south  by  Newton  and 
Brookline.  You  are  very  fortunate,  gentlemen,  to  have  no 
larger  area  to  look  after  than  this.  It  is  truly  remarkable 
that  the  moth,  having  spread  for  twenty  years  before  the 
public  action  for  extermination  began,  got  no  further. 

It  is  truly  providential  that  the  natural  condition  of  the 
country  kept  the  moth  in  the  limited  area  that  it  now  occu- 
pies during  the  twenty  years  of  freedom  before  public  action 
began.  Had  those  obstacles  to  a  rapid  spreading  disappeared 
earlier,  or  had  the  public  been  roused  to  action  later,  Heaven 
only  knows  what  troubles  we  should  be  facing  to-day. 

Introduced  into  America  in  1868  or  1869  by  Leopold  Trou- 
velot  of  Medford,  as  a  possible  silkworm,  the  moth  escaped 
from  his  custody  and  began  to  spread  rapidly.  But  it  was 
hindered  in  these  early  years  by  conditions  which  now  no 
longer  exist,  —  mark  you,  gentlemen,  those  conditions  no 
longer  exist.  It  had  to  encounter  a  new  and  changeable 
climate.  Isolation  and  the  small  numbers  of  the  species  made 
it  at  first  peculiarly  sensitive  to  all  the  attacks  of  new  ene- 
mies which  surrounded  it.  Forest  and  brush  fires  that  by 
chance  occurred  in  the  neighborhood  where  the  moth  was 
first  at  large  checked  its  spreading.  When  the  pest  did 
attract  attention  he  was  hardly  held  in  check  by  the  efforts 
of  some  of  the  residents  of  Medford  who  for  ten  or  twelve 
years  persistently  fought  the  moth  on  their  own  property. 


APPENDIX  621 

They  did  not  realize  what  the  pest  was,  they  saw  their 
gardens,  their  shade  trees,  and  their  fruit  trees  attacked  and 
destroyed,  and  they  did  their  best  to  prevent  the  destruction. 
In  1889  a  tremendous  outbreak  occurred;  the  town  was 
deluged  with  caterpillars,  and  individuals  could  do  nothing. 
On  January  15,  1890,  a  petition  for  legislation  for  the  exter- 
mination of  the  gypsy  moth  was  presented  to  the  Legislature 
by  the  selectmen  of  Medford.1  Other  towns  joined  in  the  move- 
ment; Arlington,  Everett,  Winchester,  Stoneham,  and  West- 
field  petitioned  and  the  Massachusetts  Horticultural  Society 
took  an  active  part  in  the  movement,  petitioning  the  Legis- 
lature as  follows :  — 

The  Massachusetts  Horticultural  Society  recognizing  the  dan- 
gers threatening  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  State  by  the  sudden 
appearance  in  the  town  of  Medford  of  a  dangerous  insect  pest,  peti- 
tions the  Legislature  to  support  the  citizens  of  Medford  and  adjacent 
towns  by  State  aid  in  stamping  it  out. 

The  Legislature  acted  on  these  petitions  and  appointed  a 
commission  to  employ  men  to  carry  on  the  work  of  extermi- 
nation. That  commission  has  seen  that  the  best  methods 
should  be  sought  for  this  end ;  its  entomologists  have  experi- 
mented and  found  out  the  exact  laws  governing  the  habits  of 
J;he  moth;  the  field  forces  employed  have  gradually  brought 
about  the  evolution  of  the  present  methods  of  work  to  reach 
t;he  end  aimed  for  —  extermination.  Gentlemen,  let  me  show 
you  what  this  work  consists  of,  but  before  I  do  that  let  me 
say  that  it  is  the  best  method  of  destroying  the  moth  that 
has  yet  been  devised,  —  it  is  the  result  of  the  experience  of 
carefully  trained  men,  and  it  has  received  the  approbation  of 
the  leading  entomologists  of  both  continents.  Let  me  sketch 
bhe  process  briefly.  First  in  the  winter  and  spring  the  work 
of  cutting  and  burning.  By  this  I  mean  the  cutting  down  of 
all  undergrowth  and  burning  it,  the  burning  the  ground  over 
with  the  cyclone  burner  —  an  apparatus  consisting  of  a  pump 

1  Gypsy  Moth  Report,  1896.     p.  36. 


622  APPENDIX 

for  throwing  oil  through  a  long  rubber  tube  running  through 
a  long  iron  pole.  The  fire  caused  by  lighting  the  spray  of 
oil  from  the  nozzle  is  tremendous  in  its  heat  and  effectually 
destroys  all  animal  and  plant  life.  This  method  which  is 
used  only  in  badly  infested  regions  is  most  effective.  It 
kills  all  forms  of  the  moth  that  are  in  hiding  on  the  ground, 
and  by  destroying  the  plant  life  for  the  season  forces  the 
caterpillars  to  starve  —  if  any  may  have  escaped  the  fiery 
ordeal  —  provided  a  careful  watch  is  kept  on  the  trees  sur- 
rounding the  burned  area.  Burlapping  is  the  second  step  in 
the  year's  work.  This  process  consists  in  placing  bands  of 
burlap  at  a  convenient  height  from  the  ground,  around  the 
trees  in  the  infested  region.  Thanks  to  the  caterpillars'  habit 
of  coming  down  the  tree  in  the  daytime  to  seek  a  hiding  place, 
the  men  engaged  in  the  work  of  turning  the  burlaps  can  kill 
them  very  easily  as  they  are  clustered  under  it  for  protection. 
No  bad  results  can  come  from  this  method.  Experience  has 
shown  it  to  be  the  surest  way  of  killing  large  numbers  of  the 
caterpillars.  Yet  there  are  four  things  which  must  be  done, 
and  which  are  done  efficiently  by  the  Commission's  force,  to 
insure  the  greatest  measure  of  success  in  the  use  of  the  bur- 
lap. They  are:  judicious  pruning  and  trimming  of  trees; 
treating  and  filling  cavities ;  removing  loose  bark ;  removing 
and  destroying  rubbish,  undergrowth,  and  weeds.  Besides 
these  methods,  the  work  embraces  a  very  careful  scouting 
system  in  August  and  in  the  fall,  that  is,  a  thorough  search 
for  all  forms  of  the  moth.  When  nests  are  found  during 
the  search  they  are  treated  with  creosote  and  effectively 
destroyed. 

I  forgot  to  mention  poison  spraying  as  a  part  of  the  spring 
work.  This  method  of  destruction  is  not  largely  resorted  to 
owing  to  the  danger  of  hurting  the  trees  and  a  little  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  absolute  death  of  the  moths.  However,  in 
some  localities,  arsenate  of  lead  has  been  used  with  great 
effect.  There  is  no  danger  in  eating  the  berries  or  fruit  on 
the  sprayed  trees  a  few  days  after  the  spraying  takes  place 


APPENDIX  623 

Gentlemen,  I  told  you  that  I  had  worked  at  this  job  in  the 
field  and  I  tell  you  that  the  ideas  of  the  outsider  about  the 
lightness  of  the  task  are  all  wrong.  The  men  at  work  realize 
the  danger  of  further  spreading,  and  after  they  have  been 
employed  a  few  days  are  eager  to  find  any  form  of  gypsy-moth 
life  and  stamp  it  out.  I  remember  at  one  time  the  gang  I 
was  with  were  working  four  sections,  two  of  which  were  very 
badly  infested,  the  two  others  almost  without  signs  of  the  moth. 
I  remember  how  hard  work  those  men  thought  it  was  to  search 
carefully  looking  into  every  crevice  up  every  tree,  bending  now 
forward  and  now  backward  in  the  hardest  kind  of  exertion, 
fruitless  exertion.  No,  not  fruitless  either,  for  the  killing  of 
one  or  two  bugs  found  there  was  probably  a  greater  step  toward 
the  end  extermination,  since  the  one  or  two  stray  ones  show  us 
that  we  are  nearing  the  end,  that  only  one  or  two  can  remain, 
while  the  thousands  say,  "Come  on,  there  are  plenty  of  us  left." 
The  work  moves  by  degrees ;  the  statistics  of  each  succeeding 
year  show  the  gradual  approach  to  the  minimum,  to  zero,  to 
"  no  more  bugs."  So  you  see,  gentlemen,  that  the  estimates  of 
the  outsider  —  that  I  told  you  of  earlier  this  evening  —  do  not 
hold  true. 

No,  gentlemen,  the  work  is  not  a  failure.  The  state  is  doing 
a  good  work  and  doing  it  well.  I  entirely  agree  with  Mr.  C.  H. 
Fernald,  our  state  entomologist,  when  he  says,  "  I  have  never 
seen  nor  heard  of  a  person  who  believed  it  possible  for  private 
individuals  to  exterminate  this  insect,  even  though  the  strictest 
laws  were  enacted  to  enforce  the  work." 

You  ask  if  extermination  is  possible  under  any  conditions. 
Gentlemen,  if  the  work  accomplished  nothing  more  than  holding 
the  moth  in  check  in  its  present  limits,  it  would  be  conferring 
a  great  protection  and  boon  on  you.  But  as  to  extermination, 
judge  for  yourselves.  On  the  one  hand  you  have  the  enormous 
reproductive  capacity  of  the  moth.  These  wonderful  repro- 
ductive powers  and  its  remarkable  tenacity  to  life  provide 
for  a  rapid  increase  and  redistribution  in  an  infested  local- 
ity if  even  a  few  eggs  have  been  overlooked  in  its  inspection. 


624  APPENDIX 

Also  consider  the  many  food  plants-  of  the  caterpillar,  thug 
necessitating  the  examination  of  all  species  of  trees,  and 
making  it  more  expensive  to  locate  all  the  colonies  than  it 
would  be  were  the  insects  confined  to  a  few  food  plants. 
Another  obstacle  to  extermination  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
infested  centers  are  densely  populated,  and  that  there  is 
greater  danger  of  spreading  by  persons  passing  and  repassing 
than  would  be  the  case  were  the  district  thinly  populated. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  gentlemen,  consider  that  the  infested 
regicfn  has  already  been  reduced  as  a  result  of  the  work  of 
extermination.  The  region  now  occupied  by  the  gypsy  moth 
is  considerably  less  than  was  occupied  by  it  eight  years  ago 
when  the  work  was  begun.  "In  the  Saugus  woods,  where 
caterpillars  taken  in  past  seasons  have  been  estimated  at  thou- 
sands of  bushels,  it  is  difficult  to  find  egg  clusters  to-day.  In 
the  woodlands  of  the  Mystic  valley,  outside  of  Medford,  the 
same  condition  prevails,  and  egg  clusters  can  now  be  found 
only  by  long  and  tedious  search."  1  Two  colonies  in  Peabody 
were  entirely  wiped  out  two  years  ago ; 2  and  there  are  many 
other  cases  that  prove  the  possibility  and  probability  of  exter- 
mination. This  very  fact  that  the  moth  is  confined  to  a  limited 
area  on  the  coast  is  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  extermina- 
tion ;  it  cannot  spread  at  all  on  one  side  —  toward  the  sea. 
Then,  too,  the  infested  district,  as  I  said,  is  in  the  most  popu- 
lous portion  of  the  state ;  therefore  the  extermination  of  the 
moth  directly  interests  a  large  number  of  people.  Greatest  of 
all  the  points  in  favor  of  extermination  are  the  facts  that  the 
female  does  not  fly,  and  that  the  moth  hibernates  in  the  egg. 
Could  the  moth  fly,  the  species  would  probably  have  spread 
over  all  New  England  long  ago.  But  no,  she  lays  her  eggs 
almost  beside  her  pupa  case,  and  makes  them  conspicuous  by 
their  yellowish  covering.  They  can  be  sought  for  and  destroyed 
during  the  fall  and  winter  months  when  the  trees  are  leafless 
and  the  insects  are  doing  no  damage. 

But  the  advantage  must  be  taken.  The  fact  that  the  moth 
cannot  fly  must  not  lead  us  to  neglect  the  killing.  Without 

1  House  Report  200.    p.  12.  a  Personal  experience. 


•  APPENDIX  625 

organized  efforts  it  may,  nay  it  would,  as  surely  as  the  night 
follows  the  day,  spread  over  your  farms  and  cause  you  irrep- 
arable losses.  Between  you  and  these  losses  stands  your 
protector,  the  Commission. 

"  The  conduct  of  this  work  has  been  repeatedly  indorsed  by 
leading  agricultural  organizations,  the  State  Grange,  Patrons 
of  Husbandry,  adopted  at  its  annual  meeting  in  Worcester  in 
December  a  resolution  urging  the  legislature  to  appropriate 
sumcient  money  to  carry  on  the  gypsy  moth  work  vigorously." * 
But,  gentlemen,  you  have  objected  to  wasting  the  state  reve- 
nues ;  you  say,  "  Get  the  work  done  for  less  money.'7  Let  me 
give  you  a  few  cold  figures.  "  The  value  of  the  agricultural 
products  of  this  state,  as  given  by  the  census  of  1895  is  $50,- 
000,000  in  round  numbers.  About  half  of  these  products  in 
value  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  gypsy  moth,  and  may  be  entirely 
destroyed  by  it,  while  the  remaining  products  will  be  affected 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  A  very  conservative  estimate  of 
the  average  annual  loss  caused  by  the  insect  in  this  State  is 
$1, 000,000. "2  So  much  for  possibilities.  A  few  more  figures : — 

"  The  value  of  the  taxable  property  in  this  state  is  $2,429,- 
832,966,  and  an  appropriation  (for  this  work)  of  $200,000  is  a 
tax  of  less  than  one  twelfth  of  a  mill  on  the  dollar.  A  man 
having  taxable  property  to  the  amount  of  $5000  would  have 
to  pay  a  tax  of  only  41  cents  and  6  mills.  This  beggarly  sum 
of  money  would  make  but  a  small  showing  in  the  work  of 
clearing  gypsy  moth  caterpillars  from  an  infested  $5000 
farm."3  Gentlemen,  do  you  realize  that  you  are  paying  an 
exceedingly  small  premium  to  insure  yourselves  against  the 
ravages  of  this  moth?  "This  premium  on  $1000  would  be 
eight  and  one  third  cents,  and  for  fifty  years  would  amount 
to  only  $4.16.  This  protection  would  extend  not  only  to 
farmers  and  owners  of  forest  lands,  but  also  to  residents 
;in  villages  and  cities  who  own  lands  with  trees  or  shrubs  on 
ithem,  and  to  vegetation  wherever  grown  within  the  limits  of 
jour  Commonwealth."8 

1  House  Beport  200.     p.  18.  *  Idem.    p.  24. 

8  Gypsy  Moth  Report,  1896.    p.  251. 


626  APPENDIX* 

In  the  winter  of  1896-1897  Professor  J.  B.  Smith,  State  Ento- 
mologist of  New  Jersey,  after  a  critical  examination  with  the 
special  object  in  view  of  determining  the  possibility  of  exter- 
mination, expressed  his  opinion  most  emphatically  in  his  report, 
"  Extermination  is  possible  provided  sufficient  appropriations 
are  made  for  that  purpose."  The  same  opinion  is  given  by! 
Dr.  L.  0.  Howard,  Entomologist  of  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, Washington.  He  expresses  great  satisfaction  at  the 
work  Massachusetts  is  trying  to  do,  and  declares  extermination 
to  be  not  only  possible  but  probable. 

Now,  gentlemen,  there  has  not  been  as  much  done  by  the 
commission  as  they  wished  to  do  because  their  appropriations 
have  never  been  enough.  In  1892,  $165,000  was  asked  for 
and  only  $100,000  was  granted  by  the  Legislature;  in  1893 
the  same  cutting  down  took  place.  In  1895,  finding  that  the 
smallness  of  the  appropriations  had  allowed  a  slight  increase 
in  the  infested  area,  the  commission  demanded  $200,000  ;  but 
only  $150,000  was  obtained.  The  next  year  only  $100,000 
was  appropriated.  And  so  on.  I  will  weary  you  with  no  more 
figures.  You  have  seen  how  slight  a  tax  the  appropriation 
asked  for  will  be  on  your  resources.  Now  "What  valid  reason 
can  any  candid  person  give  why  the  undivided  opinion  of  all 
economic  entomologists  in  America,  who  are  the  only  experts 
in  a  case  like  this,  should  not  be  adopted,  and  the  amounts 
estimated  by  those  who  are  best  informed  and  who  have  given 
the  closest  study  to  every  detail  of  the  work  be  appropriated  ?  " : 

Gentlemen,  let  me  read  you  what  the  Entomologist  of  the 
Board  of  Agriculture  at  Washington  says  about  this  matter, 
that  you  may  see  what  are  the  ideas  of  one  who  is  in  a  posi- 
tion to  know  as  much  as  possible  about  a  question  of  this  sort.; 
I  refer  to  Dr.  Howard,  our  national  entomologist,  who,  in  his 
general  review  of  the  warfare  against  the  gypsy  moth,  says  :  — 

"At  the  present  time  there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  the 
extermination  of  the  insect  is  possible,  and  that  it  will  be  only 

*  House  Report  200.    p.  29. 


APPENDIX  627 

a  question  of  a  few  years  if  adequate  state  appropriations  are 
continued.  The  simple  fact  that  it  has  unquestionably  been 
exterminated  over  considerable  stretches  of  territory,  and  that 
extensive  colonies  existing  in  the  most  disadvantageous  terri- 
tory for  the  prosecution  of  remedial  work  have  been  so  thor- 
oughly destroyed  that  not  an  individual  had  been  found  for 
three  years  with  the  most  rigid  annual  inspection,  is  sufficient 
proof  of  this  possibility,  for  what  can  be  done  for  one  section 
like  this  can  be  done  for  all,  if  the  means  be  sufficient." 

"After  a  review  of  the  entire  work  ...  it  cannot  but  be 
admitted  that  the  effort  of  the  state  to  exterminate  the  moth 
has  been  wise.     It  is  true  that  a  large  amount  of  money  has 
en  expended,  and  it  is  also  true  that  much  more  money 
ust  be  expended  before  extermination  can  be  accomplished; 
ut  it  is  undoubtedly  safe  to  say  that  the  money  which  has 
een  and  will  be  spent  by  the  state  in  this  work:  is  but  a  drop 
in  the  bucket  to  the  loss  which  would  have  been  occasioned 
by  the  insect  had  it  been  allowed  to  spread  unchecked.  .  .  . 
he  questions  as  to  whether  the  state  has  done  the  right  thing 
in  appropriating  for  the  extermination  of  the  insect  instead 
f  holding  it  in  subjection,  and  as  to  whether  the  money  has 
en  used  in  the  best  possible  way  to  forward  this  end,  may 
oth  be  answered  emphatically  in  the  affirmative.  .  .  .     The 
riter  believes  that  the  condition  of  the  entire  infested  terri- 
ry  at  the  present  day  is  such  that,  with  the  prompt  appro- 
riation  asked  for  by  the  commission  at  the  beginning  of  the 
ming  session  of  the  Legislature,  the  work  that  will  be  carried 
n  during  1898  will  be  of  so  effective  a  character  that  even 
hose  who  most  gravely  doubt  the  policy  of  the  state's  efforts 
ill  be  convinced  of  the  efficacy  of  the  work.    A  continuation 
f  the  appropriations  for  a  few  years  is  unquestionably  a 
ecessity.    Were  the  appropriations  to  lapse  a  single  year,  the 
ork  which  has  been  done  during  the  past  six  years  would 
argely  be  lost." 

Massachusetts  is  grappling  with  a  task  unlike  any  that  has 
ver  fallen  to  the  lot  ot  her  sister  states.     Her  duty  to  keep 


628  APPENDIX 

this  pest  from  spreading  over  the  whole  country  is  undoubtedly 
as  great  as  the  danger  to  be  feared  from  that  spreading.  Con- 
gress might  take  the  matter  up.  Indeed,  it  has  been  repeat- 
edly recommended  that  the  moth  be  exterminated  by  national 
action.  But  until  the  national  government  does  this,  does 
stand  ready  to  take  the  place  of  the  state  instanter,  we  cannot 
let  the  matter  slip  by.  We  have  the  moth  now  confined  to 
a  small  strip  of  territory ;  we  know  the  strong  probability  of 
extermination  under  present  conditions ;  we  know  how  great 
is  the  danger  of  a  lapse  of  a  single  year  in  the  work. 

Gentlemen,  you  must  stand  firm  in  your  present  attitude  of 
self-protection,  and  continue  this  work  to  the  happy  end  — 
extermination. 

XXXII 

AN  ARGUMENTATIVE  SPEECH 

Forensic  I 
A  New  Plea  on  an  Old  Subject 

Mr.  Toastmaster,   Graduates   of   Phillips   Exeter  Academy, 

Friends  :  — 

As  I  look  up  and  down  the  rows  of  faces  which  line  the 
table  to  my  right,  and  to  my  left,  and  note  the  half  incredu- 
lous expression  which  my  subject  has  aroused  on  some  faces 
with  which  I  am  familiar,  I  am  irresistibly  reminded  of  an 
experience  similar  to  this  which  I  once  had  in  Exeter.  Then, 
as  now,  youth  and  uncalcuiating  earnestness  were  my  sole 
weapons.  My  only  listener  was  that  honored  teacher  to 
whose  memory  we  have  heard  so  many  tributes  tonight,  — 
Bradbury  Longfellow  Cilley.  I  was  a  iniddler ;  Professor 
Cilley  was  my  pilot  through  the  mazes  of  Asia  Minor  with 
Xenophon.  Having  been  induced,  one  day,  by  athletic  friends 
whose  time  was  limited  to  the  running  track,  to  help  them 


APPENDIX  629 

out  in  their  campaign  of  subscriptions  to  the  track  team,  I 
went  to  Mr.  Cilley  after  the  class  and  diffidently  asked  him 
if  he  would  not  contribute.  Mr.  Cilley  seemed  a  bit  puzzled, 
at  first.  He  said, 

"Why,  you  are  not  an  athlete,  are  you?" 

"  No,"  I  replied. 

"  Are  you  interested  in  athletics  ?  " 

"  Not  personally,"  I  stuttered,  "  but  I  think  it  is  a  good 
thing  for  us  all."  I  soon  felt  that  I  was  talking  better  than 
I  had  hoped,  and  that  my  plan  really  promised  excellent 
results,  so  I  argued  long  upon  the  merits  of  my  appeal.  Mr. 
I  Cilley,  after  vigorously  clearing  his  throat,  finally  pulled  a 
dollar  from  his  pocket  and  put-  it  in  my  hand,  saying, 

"  Well,  B ,  if  you  are  the  best  man  the  track  team  can 

|  get  to  solicit  subscriptions,  I  think  they  must  be  in  need  of 
|  help.  I  '11  help  them." 

Although  Mr.  Cilley  tempered  the  sweet  of  a  contribution 
I  with  the  bitter  of  a  justifiable  judgment,  subscriptions  came 
i  freely  afterwards,  and  the  track  team  met  Andover  that 
spring  and  defeated  it  sixty-four  to  thirty-one.  The  memory 
of  my  failure  to  make  a  satisfactory  plea  before  Mr.  Cilley 
has  often  recurred  to  me  in  the  past  in  connection  with  my 
final  good  luck  in  securing  funds.  So,  when  your  toastmaster 
asked  me  to  speak  before  you  this  evening  on  one  of  the  great 
needs  of  the  Academy,  the  need  of  reviving  and  increasing 
the  athletic  interests  of  its  students,  I  reflected  that  although 
I  was  not  an  athlete  at  Exeter,  and  have  not  been  since  I 
left  there,  perhaps  my  very  weakness  in  acting  as  the  advo- 
cate of  such  needs  would  induce  you  to  regard  the  subject  in 
a  favorable  light  and  say,  as  did  "  Old  Brad  "  — 

"Well,  if  you  are  the  best  man  the  athletes  can  get  to 
solicit  our  interest,  they  must  be  in  need  of  help,  and  I'll 
help  them." 

It  is  help  that  the  athletes  need  at  Exeter,  or  I  should  not 
trust  myself  to  speak  before  you  on  a  subject  of  which  I 
am  personally  so  poor  a  representative,  and  before  you,  who 


630  APPENDIX 

have  had  and  have  still  so  many  calls  upon  you  for  money 
and  time.  But  the  chances  to  improve  the  condition  of  ath- 
letic training  at  Exeter  are  so  opportune,  the  boys  themselves 
are  so  helpless  in  their  eager  desire  to  make  a  beginning,  and 
you  as  fellow-alumni  whose  expressions  of  loyalty  have  just 
testified  to  your  continued  interest  are  so  willing  to  do  all  you 
can,  that  I  hope  if  not  the  needs  of  the  situation,  at  least  my 
own  lame  plea  may  induce  you  to  take  hold  and  help. 

The  condition  of  athletics  at  Phillips  Exeter  has  long  been 
in  a  somewhat  precarious  state,  not  only  from  the  absence  of 
a  suitable  cinder  track  near  the  Academy  and  the  lack  of  a 
locker  building  on  the  campus,  but  from  the  tardiness  with 
which  financial  support  and  vigorous  enthusiasm  have  conse- 
quently been  lent  the  candidates  for  track  and  field  honors. 

With  the  present  campus,  whose  extent  is  accurately  stated 
in  the  little  blue-covered  catalogues  Professor  Tufts  annually 
issues,  we  are  all  acquainted.  It  has  been  the  scene  of  many 
a  festive  bonfire  and  midnight  prank ;  it  has  been  the  scene 
of  many  an  Exeter  victory  at  football  or  baseball ;  and,  alas, 
it  must  be  said,  of  many  a  defeat.  We  are  all  familiar  with' 
the  appearance  it  presents  early  in  the  fall,  when  the  foot- 
ball candidates  begin  earnest  training,  and  with  its  scragged 
appearance  in  the  spring,  when  the  frost  leaves  the  ground 
and  the  baseball  candidates  begin  outdoor  work,  and  the  sun 
lies  warm  on  the  cinder  track  by  the  bleachers.  We  can  all 
remember  how  the  creek  looks  through  the  trees,  as  it  winds 
its  tortuous  way  through  Gilman  Park,  with  just  a  glimpse  of 
the  throttled  cannon  on  the  river  bank,  to  the  Swampscott. 
We  are  all  familiar  with  varied  scenes  which  the  memory  of 
the  campus  brings  back  to  us.  The  field  has  been  of  inesti- 
mable service  to  the  Academy's  athletics.  On  it  have  played 
a  McClung,  a  Heffelfinger,  and  a  Trafford.  Over  its  expanse 
of  grassy  field  many  a  student  famous  afterwards  in  college 
athletics  has  taken  his  first  lesson  in  outdoor  sports.  The 
faces  of  some  of  them  I  see  around  me,  more  are  absent,  some 
are  divided  from  us  by  the  width  of  a  continent. 


APPENDIX  631 

But  useful  as  the  field  has  been  to  us  in  the  past,  and  use- 
ful as  it  is  now  made  for  the  service  of  the  athletes  of  the 
Academy,  for  several  reasons  serious  inconvenience  is  suffered 
by  those  using  it.  In  the  first  place,  the  field  is  too  far  from 
the  Academy  for  the  convenient  use  of  the  students.  It  never 
seemed  far  to  us  when  we  marched  down  Front  Street,  shout- 
ing our  throats  hoarse  over  a  victory  against  the  little  school 
on  the  hill.  But  for  the  athlete  who  helped  win  the  game, 
that  we  might  shout,  the  distance  has  proved  not  only  incon- 
venient but  injurious.  When  combined  with  the  absence  of 
a  locker  building,  the  odds  the  athlete  must  face  are  depress- 
ing. Daily  during  the  season  of  training  he  must  put  on  his 
suit  at  the  gymnasium  and  run  tip  to  the  campus,  where  for 
half  an  hour  or  more  he  may  wait  around  in  a  cold  air,  in 
unsuitable  attire,  until  his  turn  comes  to  go  on  the  track  or 
field.  His  exercise  over,  there  is  no  building  to  which  he 
can  depart  for  a  bath  and  a  rub-down.  He  must  jog  back  to 
the  gymnasium  and  there  complete  the  details  of  his  daily 
work  which  are  so  essential  to  maintaining  his  necessary 
form  and  condition. 

It  is  not  of  ideal  conditions  I  speak  in  comparison.  Ideal 
conditions  cannot,  perhaps,  ever  be  found  where  winter  comes 
so  soon  upon  the  fall  training  season  and  spring  so  tardily 
clears  the  ground  of  ice  and  snow.  It  is  not  of  ideal,  but  of 
practical  conditions  which  a  cordial  assent  from  you  here 
to-night  may  produce,  that  I  wish  to  speak.  Phillips  Exeter 
has  managed  to  get  along  with  its  present  campus  for  many 
years  and  undoubtedly  could  do  so  longer  were  it  not  for 
outside  considerations  which  hamper  the  utilization  of  even 
so  poor  a  field. 

Those  of  us  who  have  attended  the  interscholastic  meets 
in  Mechanics  Building  have  often  wondered  why  our  old 
Academy,  once  so  supreme  in  all  that  spells  athletics,  is  now 
relegated  to  a  back  seat  and  a  few  paltry  points.  Some  of 
us  who  have  seen  this  showing  made  year  after  year  have 
almost  despaired  of  any  hopeful  change.  "  It  is  in  the  nature 


632  APPENDIX 

of  things,"  I  heard  an  old  graduate  say  upon  one  of  these 
occasions,  "  Exeter  has  changed  since  I  was  there  and  victory 
has  left  her." 

Those  of  us  who  have  not  attended  the  meetings  in  which 
Exeter  has  contested  with  other  schools  for  the  possession  of 
a  much-prized  banner  have  still,  I  am  sure,  wished  often  that 
our  old  Academy  might  lift  its  head  high  again  in  the  posses- 
sion of  athletic  honors.  For,  little  as  athletic  honors  mean 
to  us  who  are  absorbed  in  business  cares,  there  is  not  one  of 
us,  I  feel  assured,  who  does  not  remember  how  important  a 
place  pitching  a  ball  straight  over  the  home  plate,  or  circling 
the  end  of  an  opposing  eleven,  or  rushing  the  puck  down  over 
the  ice  to  the  opponent's  goal  once  seemed  to  us.  And 
whether  we  ourselves  were  athletes  or  not,  many  of  us  have 
sons  whose  interest  in  tennis,  baseball,  football,  or  hockey 
revives  in  us  the  feeling  of  how  good  a  thing  it  is  to  be  a  boy 
with  a  strong  arm,  active  legs,  and  a  clear  eye.  Even  if  we 
have  never  felt  these  regrets  for  our  youth  and  hopes  for  the 
youth  of  our  sons,  and  I  am  sure  not  many  of  us  have  escaped 
both  experiences,  we  are  all,  as  fellow-alumni  of  a  cherished 
academy,  anxious  that  its  sons  rank  in  the  activities  of  their 
college  life  high  up  among  those  best  famed. 

Once  we  had  no  need  to  utter  the  wish ;  it  was  expressed 
in  real  life,  both  at  New  Haven  and  in  our  oldest  university 
across  the  Charles.  But  our  day  of  athletic  supremacy  in 
these  institutions  seems  to  some  of  us  to  have  become  darkened, 
as  we  look  in  vain  over  the  summaries  and  scores  of  Harvard- 
Yale  games,  to  see  names  made  familiar  to  us  because  their 
bearers  are  sons  of  Exeter.  Friends,  the  change  has  been 
real ;  it  is  not  a  fiction  or  an  illusion  raised  by  our  increasing 
years  and  separation  from  the  active  interests  of  the  Academy. 
Exeter  has  not  been  securing  the  honors  in  athletics  we  wish 
it  should  secure  in  Harvard  and  Yale,  and  it  is  partly  our 
fault  that  this  is  so. 

Newer  schools,  with  better  facilities,  have  arisen  to  contest 
the  supremacy  of  the  track,  diamond,  and  gridiron  with  us, 


APPENDIX  633 

jand  to  our  shame  be  it  said,  have  often  been  successful.  But 
the  conditions,  discouraging  as  they  seem  to  the  younger  of 
us,  need  be  but  temporary.  The  magician's  wand  may  be 
waved  over  Exeter's  athletics  and  presto  !  change.  Once  more 
;he  old  school  will  have  its  celebration  after  a  football  victory 
3ver  Andover,  once  more  the  Academy  nine  will  return  to  the 
precincts  of  Abbott  Hall,  jubilant  in  the  flush  of  another  vic- 
fcory,  once  more  our  successors  in  the  old  room  on  Front  Street 
jmay  hang  over  their  windows  printed  shingles  and  red  ribbons 
pvhose  cabalistic  figures  denote  victory  on  track  or  field  of  the 
(red  and  gray.  Once  more  we  can  go  to  the  interscholastic 
[games  and  renew  our  youth  while  cheering  a  runner  from  the 
pld  Academy,  and  across  the  Charles  or  down  at  New  Haven 
[we  can  have  a  corps  of  earnest,  loyal  young  men  working  out 
fin  the  channels  Exeter  has  opened  to  them  the  no  less  impor- 
tant victories  of  college  athletics.  Friends,  this  forecast  is  all 
possible.  The  wand  need  onjy  be  waved,  and  it  will  come 
prue.  We  need  only  pledge  our  earnest  support,  our  con- 
jtinued  interest,  and  financial  backing,  and  Exeter  will  stand 
fonce  more  where  we  love  to  think  it  has  long  been  and  should 
always  be. 

When  I  speak  of  the  conditions  of  the  past  in  Exeter  and 
of  the  possibilities  of  the  future,  I  assume,  I  hope  justifiably, 
that  we  are  all  interested  in  athletics  and-  in  the  position  of 
Exeter  graduates  in  our  colleges.  For  such  of  us  as  are  young 
in  years,  the  influence  of  the  recent  development  of  athletics, 

feel  sure,  has  gained  approbation  for  a  plan  to  better  the 
conditions  at  Exeter;  to  those  older  in  years,  but  still  young 
in  spirit,  the  plan  equally  appeals,  although  its  details  may 
be  less  familiar  and  its  necessity  less  real.  But  however  we 
may  differ,  from  age  and  the  results  of  experience,  in  our 
views  of  the  project,  we  are  all  one  in  the  spirit  of  loyalty  to 
Phillips  Exeter  and  in  a  desire  to  do  what  we  can  for  it. 
This  spirit  it  is  which  may  safely  guide  us,  for  it  is  born  of 
unselfishness  and  generosity,  and  is  akin  to  the  sacrifices  of 
many  graduates  who  have  given  their  all,  even  their  lives,  to 


634  APPENDIX 

the  life  of  the  school.  If  a  Sibley  has  spent  a  laborious  life, 
whose  literary  labors  add  fresh  laurels  to  the  list  of  Exeter 
graduates,  he  has  devoted  the  savings  of  his  whole  lifetime 
that  poor  students,  such  as  he  himself  once  was,  might  be 
assisted  to  enjoy  in  the  beloved  Academy  those  advantages 
which  he  had  prized  so  highly.  If  a  Kingman  has  lived  a 
life  of  honorable  and  unceasing  toil,  he  has  not  forgotten  at 
the  close  of  his  exertions  the  Academy  where  he  first  won  the 
educational  equipment  which  made  his  life  possible.  So  we' 
all,  though  not  Sibleys  nor  Kingmans,  have  in  our  breasts  a 
touch  of  that  same  loyalty  and  devotion  which  can  blossom 
out  into  fitting  deeds  when  we  learn  how  the  test  can  bei 
applied  to  our  own  lives. 

The  bettering  of  athletic  conditions  at  Exeter,  friends,  is  a 
real  way,  a  lasting  way,  a  way  sure  to  result  in  all  we  could] 
desire.     To  make  Exeter  a  school  among  schools,  to  bring  it 
up  to  the  high  standard  now  sej  by  other  schools  in  athletics,; 
we  need  better  equipment,  better  athletic  grounds,  a  better 
track,  a  locker  building,  in  other  words,  those  conditions  which 
will  stimulate  the  athletic  work  of  the  students  without  depriv- 
ing them  of  that  vigor,  that  distaste  for  ease  and  luxury,  which 
we  have  been  proud  to  own  Exeter  has  bred  in  our  bones.    It' 
is  not  for  an  easing  of  athletic  work  or  training  I  plead,  nor 
for  conditions  which  would  untemper  the  strong  manhood  of 
its  students.     A  dressing  room  on  the  athletic  field,  bathsj 
near  at  hand,  and  an  athletic  field  sufficiently  large  to  hold 
all  the  school  and  sufficiently  near  to  induce  all  the  school  to 
come  out,  are  not  conditions  of  luxury  or  effeminacy.    They  are 
just  the  forming  conditions  which  have  led  other  schools  tOa 
forge  ahead  of  us,  and  whose  absence  has  retarded  the  athletic 
evolution  of  the  boys  at  Exeter,  soon  to  be,  like  us,  loyal  alumni, 
proud  of  a  diploma  and  the  years  of  happy  life  it  denotes. 

In  suggesting  a  plan  for  our  cooperation  in  the  revival  of 
athletics  under  better  conditions  at  Exeter,  friends,  I  have  notj 
come  to  you  empty-handed.  Already  a  generous  graduate  o^ 
the  school,  whose  modest  countenance  I  see  before  me,  near  our 


APPENDIX  635 

honored  toastraaster,  has  taken  the  lead.  To  carry  out  a  plan 
for  better  athletic  grounds,  friends,  our  fellow-alumnus,  Mr. 
William  Chadwick,  has  already  offered  to  purchase  for  the 
use  of  the  athletes  at  Exeter  a  large  athletic  field  near  the 
school,  of  sufficient  size  and  of  great  attractiveness,  which 
contains  all  the  requirements  the  most  scrupulous  of  us  could 
demand.  Mr.  Chadwick  has  offered  to  purchase  and  give  to 
the  school  a  large  field  situated  on  Court  Street,  not  a  block 
from  the  Academy  building,  which  we  can  all  remember,  lying 
as  it  does  at  the  entrance  to  G-ilman  Park,  and  commanding  a 
view  over  the  river  to  the  woods  beyond,  and  down  Court 
Street  to  Kensington  Hill.  No  better  location  could  possibly 
be  found  for  our  needs,  and  it  is  ours  for  the  asking.  "  For 
the  asking,"  did  I  say  ?  Yes  and  no.  For  there  is  a  condi- 
tion attached  to  the  gift.  That  condition  is  nothing  more 
than  that  we  shall  proceed  to  justify  our  possession  of  the 
field  by  taking  steps  immediately  to  lay  out  suitable  athletic 
fields  upon  it.  There  is  room  for  two  football  fields,  two 
baseball  diamonds,  practice  fields  for  both  sports,  a  cinder 
track,  and  inside  the  track  a  space  for  field  events.  These 
are  all  needed,  both  to  fulfill  the  conditions  of  the  gift  and  to 
make  its  possession  suitable  for  our  use.  Besides  this,  the 
time  is  opportune  for  the  erection  upon  it  of  an  athletic 
building,  of  small  size,  but  conveniently  large,  to  contain  a 
trophy  room  for  our  banners  and  cups  (for  we  have  earned 
many  such  and  hope  to  earn  more),  a  large  shower  bath,  dress- 
ing rooms  and  lockers.  Such  a  building,  I  have  found,  will 
not  cost  more  than  $1500  or  $2000,  and  together  with  the 
cost  of  rolling  the  field,  laying  out  the  diamond  and  gridiron, 
and  making  the  cinder  track,  need  cost  us  but  a  few  thousand 
dollars.  About  $5000  will  be  supplied  by  the  sale  of  the  old 
campus,  so  that  but  $4000  is  the  contribution  for  which  we  can 
earn  the  everlasting  praise  of  Exeter  youth  and  repay  the 
obligations  so  many  of  us  feel  to  the  old  Academy. 

This  contribution  made  and  our  interest  assured,  Exeter 
will  have  conditions  for  the  athletic  training  of  her  youth  of 


636  APPENDIX 

which  we  may  be  proud,  conditions  which  will,  I  confidently 
believe,  and  I  am  sure  many  of  us  confidently  believe,  put  her 
once  more  in  the  front  rank  of  preparatory  schools  of  Xew 
England.  Besides  this,  the  laying  out  of  a  new  field  and  the 
provision  of  better  athletic  equipment  will  arouse  among  the 
boys  such  a  spirit  of  enthusiasm  as  may  well  bring  us  gratifi- 
cation, since  it  is  sure  to  result  in  a  more  enthusiastic  support 
of  the  athletic  teams  and  a  new  birth  of  athletic  sports. 

Fellow-alumni,  our  opportunity  lies  before  us.  I  will  not 
call  it  "  duty  "  for  that  word  is  too  often  misapplied  to  indi- 
cate what  is  unpleasant.  And  then  it  is  as  a  privilege  rather 
that  we  like  to  look  at  the  chance  of  helping  the  boys  who  are 
now  where  we  once  were,  and  testifying  our  loyalty  to  the 
dear  old  Academy  whose  sons  we  proudly  own  ourselves  to  « 
be.  It  is  within  our  power  to  wave  the  wand  of  promise  over 
Exeter  and  rejuvenate  her  athletics.  It  is  within  our  power 
to  see  her  sons  prominent  once  more  in  victories  won  over; 
Andover,  to  see  her  alumni  once  more  on  the  Harvard  and 
Yale  elevens,  eights,  and  nines,  and  to  know  that  there  is 
growing  at  Exeter  a  healthy  love  for  athletics,  for  the  good 
of  the  body,  which  will  combine  some  day  with  the  rising  tide 
of  athletic  interest  in  our  country  to  make  a  new  race  of 
stronger,  abler,  clearer-eyed  men. 

Already,  friends,  we  have  an  initial  gift,  one  which  it  would 
be  the  hardest  for  us  to  fulfill  if  we  were  to  begin  at  the 
start.  But  the  start  has  been  made,  and  we  are  already  on 
the  road  to  our  desire.  We  need  but  say  the  word,  now,  and  \ 
we  shall  have  what  we  need  at  Exeter,  what  Exeter  wants, 
and  what  we  want.  Fellow-alumni,  shall  we  say  that  word? 


APPENDIX  637 

XXXIII 

SPECIMEN  DEBATE 

SUBJECT 

The  following  facts  being  presupposed: 

1.  The  existence  of  money  claims  by  a  European  government  against 

a  South  American  state ; 

2.  Such  claims  submitted  by  consent  of  both  parties  to  the  Hague 

tribunal  for  arbitration; 

3.  An  award  by  said  tribunal  in  favor  of  the  European  government ; 

4.  The  time  and  amount  of  payment  fixed  by  the  award ; 

5.  Default  of  payment  according  to  terms  of  the  award ; 

6.  A  system  of  absolute  free  trade  existing  in  the  debtor  state ; 

RESOLVED  :  That  the  United  States  should  permit  the  European 
government  to  seize  and  hold  permanently  territory  of  the 
debtor  state  not  exceeding  in  value  the  amount  of  the  award 

FIRST  SPEAKER  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen  :  In  South  America  and  in  eve,ry  land 
where  the  language  of  Spain  is  spoken,  the  people  have  a 
favorite  word,  —  manana.  It  tells  you  the  time  when  they 
pay  their  debts.  They  are  in  the  habit  of  putting  off  their 
creditors  until  to-morrow.  This  habit  has  given  us  —  has 
suggested  our  question  to-night.  We  have  six  presupposed 
facts,  and  the  affirmative  believe  that  if  ever  a  European 
nation  can  acquire  a  right  to  territory  in  South  America  such 
a  right  exists  under  our  presuppositions.  A  European  coun- 
try holds  money  claims  against  a  South  American  state. 
These  claims  may  have  arisen  because  of  injury  to  property 
or  to  citizens,  or  they  may  arise  because  some  president  has 
resigned  and  the  succeeding  administration  has  refused  to  pay 
for  bonds  which  he  issued.  However,  these  claims  have 
arisen,  and  if  we  judge  by  the  experience  of  the  past,  they 
have  been  the  subject  of  diplomatic  negotiations  for  a  period 


638  APPENDIX 

of  years.  During  this  time  the  European  government  has 
been  patient  and  forbearing.  She  might  have  insisted  upon 
immediate  payment ;  she  might  have  made  use  of  her  superior 
strength  and  collected  by  force,  but  she  has  not  done  this. 
She  has  been  willing  to  pursue  the  methods  of  peace.  She 
has  conferred  with  this  debtor  state  and  consented  to  submit 
her  claims  to  arbitration  by  the  Hague  tribunal.  She  has 
done  all  that  a  creditor  could  be  asked  to  do. 

The  South  American  republic  was  an  equal  party  to  this 
arbitration.  It  was  a  free  agent  and  acted  voluntarily  and 
under  no  compulsion.  It  was  not  in  the  position  of  an  ordi- 
nary defendant  at  civil  law.  Such  a  defendant  has  no  option 
as  to  whether  his  case  shall  be  heard  by  any  particular  court 
or  not;  he  is  often  brought  into  court  against  his  will,  but 
when  a  decision  is  rendered  he  is  compelled  to  accept  it  in 
full.  In  the  present  case  there  has  been  no  compulsion. 
The  debtor  state  has  consented  to  arbitration.  She  has 
bound  herself  to  accept  the  terms  of  the  decision  given  by 
the  referee.  And  if  any  decision  of  human  minds  can  be 
called  accurate  and  just  we  may  presume  that  a  decision  by 
the  Hague  tribunal  does  full  equity  to  both  parties.  This 
court  has  doubtless  taken  into  consideration  every  fact  that 
ought  to  influence  its  decision.  The  court  understood  the 
probable  revenue  of  the  state,  its  present  financial  condition, 
and  all  probable  contingencies.  So  a  time  was  set  by  which 
this  debtor  state  could,  with  ordinary  care,  have  put  aside 
enough  revenue  to  meet  this  obligation.  If  it  had  chosen  to 
pay  the  money  it  could  have  accumulated  funds.  But  it  has 
chosen  to  default.  It  has  broken  its  pledge  and  this  can  only 
be  taken  to  mean  an  unwillingness  to  pay.  Our  question 
then  presents  this  question  :  A  republic  bound  to  accept  the 
decision  of  a  referee  chosen  by  common  consent  has  defaulted 
the  obligation  and  injured  a  fair-minded  creditor. 

At  this  moment  the  decision  of  the  Hague  tribunal  either 
means  something  or  it  means  nothing.  If  it  means  anything 
it  means  that  on  the  last  day  set  for  payment  the  creditor 


APPENDIX  639 

state  has  a  right  to  full  satisfaction.  There  comes  a  time  in 
the  dealings  of  nations  when  all  trifling  with  a  creditor  nation 
must  cease,  and  this  time  has  come.  This  debt  has  reached 
the  final  point  in  its  history.  This  date  was  not  the  date  on 
which  the  republic  might  begin  paying,  it  was  the  date  before 
which  it  ought  to  have  paid.  If  this  award  intended  anything 
it  intended  that  by  the  final  cTay  this  debt  should  be  absolutely 
extinguished,  and  therefore  any  proposition  which  continues 
this  debt  either  in  part  or  in  whole  is  a  nullification  of  this 
award.  If  any  one  suggests  that  the  creditor  power  be  paid 
later  he  is  overthrowing  this  award.  The  creditor  nation  is 
entitled  to  full  and  immediate  satisfaction  at  this  time.  If 
the  judgment  stands  for  anything  it  must  mean  that.  Now 
at  law  when  one  man  has  a  judgment  against  another,  he  has 
an  immediate  right  to  levy  on  property.  He  can  satisfy  him- 
self and  in  full  out  of  the  existing  property  of  his  debtor. 
It  is  such  a  proceeding  as  this  that  we  recognize  between 
nations,  for  under  this  award  by  the  Hague  tribunal  the  cred- 
itor nation  is  entitled  to  full  and  immediate  satisfaction.  Up 
to  the  time  set  -for  payment  this  satisfaction  should  have 
come  in  the  form  of  cash,  but  under  the  presuppositions  of 
our  question  the  debtor  state  has  by  its  own  act  indicated  that 
cash  is  not  forthcoming,  and  therefore  the  only  thing  upon 
which  this  award  can  fall,  the  only  immediate  way  for  the 
creditor  state  to  carry  out  the  intention  of  the  award  is  by  the 
seizure  of  land. 

Now  the  seizure  of  land  is  a  form  of  collecting  debts  recog- 
nized in  international  law.  It  is  approved  by  the  highest 
authorities  on  that  subject.  "When  a  debt  remains  unpaid 
from  one  nation  to  another,  the  injured  state  may  make  use 
of  force  to  collect  that  debt,  and  one  of  the  things  it  may  do 
is  to  seize  and  hold  permanently  land,"  so  Gen.  Halleck  says 
in  his  work  on  international  law.  Jf  one  state  be  injured  by 
another  it  may  seek  redress  by  war  and  require  not  only 
indemnity  for  the  past  but  security  for  the  future,  and  to 
secure  itself  it  may  take  away  the  property  of  the  state.  The 


640  APPENDIX 

same  position  is  taken  by  Dr.  Hall,  Mr.  Wheaton,  and  other 
students  of  international  law.  And  this  right  has  been  exer- 
cised more  than  once.  We  cite  the  case  of  Madagascar  in 
1883.  In  that  year  the  government  refused  to  pay  for  injuries 
done  to  French  citizens,  and  the  republic  of  France  seized 
certain  ports  of  Madagascar  which  she  holds  to-day. 

There  is  no  chance  under  our* presuppositions  for  a  prepos- 
terous claim,  for  a  trumped-up  case  of  land  grabbing.  There 
is  a  just  debt  to  be  satisfied,  and  the  value  of  the  land  to  be 
taken  is  to  be  justly  arrived  at.  When  this  land  is  taken, 
this  definite,  limited  amount  of  land,  a  just  act  will  have 
transpired  between  the  creditor  state  and  the  debtor  state. 
Justice  is  on  the  side  of  the  creditor  state.  Now  what  should 
be  the  position  of  the  United  States  of  America?  We  pro- 
pose that  the  United  States  allow  this  just  thing  to  take 
place.  We  propose  the  normal  policy  of  non-interference  in 
the  affair  of  other  countries.  One  nation  cannot  interfere  in 
the  affairs  of  another  without  the  gravest  reason.  Mr.  Wil- 
son, professor  of  international  law  at  Yale  University,  has 
said  :  "  Whatever  be  the  interference,  it  can  only  be  justified 
as  an  extreme  measure."  In  the  words  of  Chancellor  Kent 
the  doctrine  of  non-interference  is  a  cardinal  principle  of 
international  law,  the  burden  of  proof  resting  on  those  who 
would  dislodge  it.  Intervention,  then,  is  an  abnormal  policy 
in  any  case,  but  under  the  facts  of  our  question,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  any  act  of  intervention  would  be  a  peculiarly  seri- 
ous move.  This  is  not  a  mere  squabble  between  two  countries. 
There  is  a  higher  principle  involved.  We  have  seen  that  here 
is  the  decision  of  a  referee  chosen  by  common  consent  and  the 
creditor  nation,  acting  within  her  rights,  is  proceeding  by  the 
only  means  open  to  her  of  fulfilling  this  award  of  the  Hague 
tribunal.  If  another  state  can  interfere  and  say,  "You  shall 
not  have  that  which  is  your  just  due,  but  you  must  take 
a  different  sort  of  thing  at  a  different  time,"  then 'the  prin- 
ciple of  arbitration  is  challenged.  If  a  third  party  for  some 
selfish  reason  can  interfere  to  prevent  the  enforcement  of  this 


APPENDIX  641 

decision,  then  this  decision  is  no  more  than  a  memorandum. 
If  this  judgment  does  not  absolutely  end  the  debt,  then,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  it  is  only  another  milestone  upon  an  endless 
journey.  Any  nation  whose  attitude  brings  about  such  a 
result  as  this  will  be  acting  against  the  general  good  of  man- 
kind, and  of  all  the  nations  we  know,  this  one  ought  to  be  the 
last  to  take  such  a  step.  There  is  one  country  which  has 
done  more  than  any  other  to  have  the  disputes  of  nations 
settled  in  the  ways  of  peace,  there  is  a  nation  whose  courts 
are  always  ready  to  recognize  the  decision  of  a  referee  chosen 
by  both  parties..  The  United  States  of  America  has  pledged 
herself  to  the  cause  of  international  arbitration  and  should 
take  no  step  to  make  arbitration  less  effective. 

FIRST  SPEAKER  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  We  take  issue  with  the  assertion  of 
the  preceding  speaker,  that  the  only  way  in  which  the  decision 
of  the  Hague  tribunal  can  be  carried  out  is  by  the  seizure  of 
land.  This  is  not  carrying  out  the  decision  of  the  Hague 
tribunal.  The  preceding  gentleman  asserts  that  the  creditor 
nation  should  have  the  right  to  immediate  remedy.  We  fully 
agree  with  the  gentleman,  but  we  ask  why  should  not  the 
creditor  nation  make  at  least  some  effort  to  carry  out  the 
award  of  that  tribunal  which,  as  he  states,  has  taken  every- 
thing into  account  and  has  given  a  decision  of  money  and 
not  of  land?  Our  first  objection  to  the  proposition  of  the 
affirmative  is  that  it  is  too  broad  and  sweeping  to  be  states- 
manlike. These  six  conditions  could  never  exist  by  them- 
selves. There  would  inevitably  be  other  conditions,  and  as 
these  conditions  vary  the  case  at  issue  will  vary  in  most 
important  particulars,  and  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  affirm- 
ative to  justify  the  seizure  of  land  whenever  and  wherever 
these  conditions  exist  in  South  America. 

Let  us  suppose  for  instance  that  the  debtor  nation  has  been 
accumulating,  money  with  which  to  pay  the  claims  which  are 


642  APPENDIX 

held  against  her  and  a  panic  sweeps  over  the  country  or  a 
revolution  breaks  out  or  it  becomes  burdened  with  war.  Shall 
we  allow  the  creditor  nation  to  take  advantage  of  the  debtor's 
misfortune?  Or  suppose  the  debtor  nation  asks  for  a  short 
extension  of  time  and  has  good  prospects  of  ability  to  fulfill 
her  promise,  shall  we  allow  the  European  nation  wantonly 
to  seize  land?  Is  a  sovereign  state,  whose  rights  are  far 
greater  than  those  of  an  individual,  to  be  allowed  no  grace  ? 
Even  if  the  principle  of  the  seizure  of  land  were  not  so 
obviously  untenable,  shall  we  allow  no  equity  of  redemption  ? 
Suppose  there  are  eight  or  ten  creditor  nations,  as  in  the  case 
of  Venezuela,  shall  we  allow  that  nation  to  be  divided  and 
its  very  life  destroyed?  Or  again,  suppose  we  are  on  the 
brink  of  war  with  the  creditor  nation,  shall  we  permit  it  to 
seize  land  near  the  Isthmian  canal  or  any  portion  of  the 
Caribbean  Sea  ?  The  proposition  is  simply  this :  Eesolved, 
that  we  permit  the  seizure  of  a  South  American  state  which 
has  failed  to  pay  a  debt,  regardless  of  how  much  land  would 
be  taken,  regardless  of  where  situated,  whether  in  Patagonia 
or  Panama,  regardless  of  our  relations  with  the  creditor  nation, 
regardless  of  the  number  of  European  nations,  regardless  of 
the  motive  of  the  nation  in  seizing  the  land,  regardless  of 
whether  the  claims  are  for  damages  or  injury  or  interest, 
regardless  of  whether  a  mere  protest  would  prevent  the  seiz- 
ure, regardless  of  the  possible  ability  of  the  state  to  pay, 
regardless  of  the  reason  for  the  default  of  the  debtor  state, 
and  regardless  of  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  The 
position  of  the  affirmative  declares  that  the  United  States 
has  no  interest  in  South  America  and  can  have  none.  Even 
if  we  have  no  interest  there,  we  cannot  allow  the  seizure  of 
land  under  these  conditions,  for  if  our  peace  and  safety  are 
menaced  at  all  they  will  be  menaced  by  the  amount  of  land 
taken,  the  situation  of  this  land,  and  our  relations  with  the 
creditor  state,  the  conditions  attending  the  seizure  of  the 
land,  and  the  other  conditions  I  have  mentioned.  It  is  not 
the  negative  but  the  affirmative  whose  policy  is  hostile  to 


APPENDIX  643 

the  success  of  arbitration.  The  preceding  gentleman  has  laid 
great  stress  upon  the  decision  of  the  Hague  tribunal.  We 
affirm  that  his  position  is  also  too  broad  because  it  assumes 
that  the  moment  the  debt  falls  due  there  is  a  complete  break- 
down of  arbitration.  Surely  we  should  demand  that  the 
creditor  nation  at  least  make  some  effort  to  collect  the  award 
itself  before  it  throws  the  award  over.  As  I  have  just  said, 
it  is  the  policy  of  the  affirmative  that  is  hostile  to  the  success 
of  arbitration. 

Suppose  a  case  to  arise  six  months  from  now  where  a  South 
American  state  refuses  to  arbitrate  a  debt  and  fails  to  pay  it 
when  matured.  The  interest  of  arbitration  demands  that  we 
should  permit  the  seizure  of  land  in  a  case  like  that,  other- 
wise we  should  be  upholding  the  policy  that  where  a  nation 
refuses  to  arbitrate  its  land  cannot  be  taken.  This  would 
place  a  penalty  upon  arbitration  and  a  premium  on  non-arbi- 
tration. For  if  no  land  can  be  taken  from  a  nation  that  does 
not  arbitrate  and  land  can  be  taken  of  a  nation  that  does 
arbitrate,  every  state  in  South  America  will  keep  just  as  far 
away  from  arbitration  tribunals  as  it  can.  And  obviously 
we  cannot  allow  European  nations  free  license  to  seize  land 
wherever  they  have  claims  against  South  American  states. 
If  we  cannot  permit  the  seizure  of  land  in  both  cases,  we 
cannot  permit  it  in  one. 

In  the  second  place  we  are  opposed  to  the  proposition  of 
the  affirmative  because  it  is  a  radical  departure  from  our 
policy  of  three  quarters  'of  a  century.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  intention  of  Monroe,  one  thing  is  certain,  —  the 
result  of  the  policy  which  bears  his  name  has  been  the  total 
negation  of  every  attempt  of  a  European  nation  to  extend  its 
dominion  over  this  hemisphere.  The  strength  of  this  policy 
lies  in  the  fact  that  we  have  allowed  no  exception.  The 
attempt  of  Great  Britain  to  take  from  Venezuela  and  add  to 
British  Guiana  eighty  thousand  square  miles  shows  the  use 
which  even  a  friendly  nation  makes  of  an  entering  wedge. 
There  will  be  many  a  better  pretext  than  an  unpaid  debt  fol 


644  APPENDIX 

the  seizure  of  land,  and  here  once  more  we  take  exception, 
for  the  seizure  of  land  in  payment  of  a  money  claim  is  unwar- 
ranted by  precedent  among  the  civilized  nations.  The  pre-. 
ceding  speaker  has  called  attention  to  the  case  of  Madagascar, 
but  perhaps  you  noticed  that  the  seizure  of  land  was  made 
as  the  result  of  war  and  not  in  payment  of  a  debt.  And  the 
better  the  pretext,  the  more  will  we  be  bound  to  permit  the 
seizure.  Allow  one  infraction  of  this  policy  and  you  begin 
to  draw  it  down.  So  soon  as  the  United  States  admits  the 
right  of  a  European  nation  to  seize  land  under  the  pretext 
of  unpaid  debt,  this  policy  becomes  wavering,  indefinite,  and 
inconsistent.  It  is  far  more  difficult  to  construct  a  policy 
than  it  is  to  destroy  it.  And  we  ask  the  affirmative  to  show 
some  good  reason  for  advocating  the  departure  from  a  policy 
of  such  long  standing  and  giving  Europe  just  such  an  oppor- 
tunity as  she  desires  and  has  been  awaiting  for  years.  As  I 
have  pointed  out,  if  we  are  to  permit  the  seizure  of  land 
where  there  has  been  arbitration,  we  necessarily  must  permit 
the  seizure  of  land  where  the  debtor  nation  refuses  to  arbi- 
trate. And  here  we  ask  of  the  affirmative,  who  shall  prevent 
the  creditor  nation  from  seizing  land  exceeding  in  value  the 
amount  of  the  award?  For  unless  the  United  States  shall 
interfere  or  some  one  else  shall  interfere,  manifestly  South 
America  is  at  the  mercy  of  Germany  and  all  the  other  states 
of  Europe.  The  proposition  of  the  affirmative  is  this  :  That 
we  should  totally  disregard  all  the  conditions  attending  the 
default  of  payment  by  the  South  American  state.  Resolved, 
that  we  throw  open  to  Europe  a  country  closed  for  eighty 
years. 

But  the  affirmative  may  ask  what  right  has  the  United 
States  to  interfere.  We  have  a  dozen  rights.  We  have  a 
right  to  protect  the  states  from  oppression ;  we  have  a  right 
to  protect  the  Isthmian  canal ;  we  have  a  right  to  insist  that 
the  creditor  nation  carry  out  the  award ;  we  have  a  right  to 
provide  for  self-defense  in  time  of  war ;  we  have  a  right  to 
continue  our  own  destiny  unhindered  by  diplomatic  friction ; 


APPENDIX  645 

we  have  a  right  to  free  ourselves  from  European  entangle- 
ments in  which  European  countries  have  been  involved  for 
centuries ;  we  have  a  right  to  maintain  friendly  relations 
with  South  America ;  we  have  a  right  to  continue  a  policy 
j  so  beneficial  in  the  past ;  we  have  a  right  to  continue  a  policy 
so  long  maintained  and  which  has  received  the  sanction  of 
all  usage. 

SECOND  SPEAKER  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  I  think  there  is  one  thing  upon 
which  we  will  all  agree,  and  that  is  that  this  question  was 
|  certainly  prolific  of  presupposed  conditions.     The  gentlemen 
i  would  put  a  few  more  presuppositions  on  the  question.    They 
!  would  say  presuppose  that  a  revolution  has  taken  place  in  the 
i  South  American  republic ;  presuppose  that  there  has  been  ari 
invasion  by  a  foreign  nation ;  presuppose  a  hundred  and  one 
things ;  and  the  gentlemen  would  say  that  we  still  must  sup- 
j  port  the  proposition  that  is  laid  down  for  us,  namely,  that  we 
i  would  allow  the  European  states  to  seize  land.     We  agree 
j  with  the  gentlemen  that  if  a  revolution  takes  place  and  over- 
j  throws  all  of  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time  the  award 
j  was  made,  the  European  state  has  no  right  to  seize  territory. 
I  We  agree  with  the  gentlemen  that  if  the  South  American 
state  sends  money  to  pay  its  debt  and  the  ship  in  which  it  is 
sent  is  lost  at  sea  the  European  power  would  not  have  a  right 
to  seize  land.     But  we  must  discuss  this  question  under  nor- 
mal conditions.     Under  a  normal  state  of  affairs  should  we 
allow  the  seizure  of  land  ?     We  say  that  the  seizure  of  land 
is  the  only  means  of  carrying  out  this  award.    The  gentleman 
has  told  us  it  is  not.     But  what  other  means  he  has  given  us 
I  was  not  able  to  ascertain.     The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
there  is  one  means  and  only  one.     The  gentleman  says  the 
European  state  might  have  given  a  few  more  days  of  grace. 
I  concede  they  might  do  that,  or  they  might  do  a  few  more 
things,  but  the  European  state  has  waited  as  long  as  any 


646  APPENDIX 

patient  and  fair-minded  nation  has  or  can  ever  be  asked  to 
wait.  The  Hague  tribunal  has  considered  every  circumstance 
in  determining  the  time  when  the  debtor  state  could  pay  if  it 
desired  to  pay.  And  now  we  say  that  the  seizure  of  land  is 
the  only  means  left  to  the  creditor  nation.  But,  the  gentle- 
men say,  the  seizure  might  be  excessive.  We  again  refer  thei 
gentlemen  to  the  question  before  them,  —  the  United  States' 
should  allow  the  seizure  of  land  not  exceeding  in  value  the 
amount  of  the  award.  But,  the  gentlemen  assert,  this  seizure 
is  not  recognized  by  international  law.  We  would  refer  the 
gentlemen  to  the  case  of  Kiau  Chau  in  1897  when  Germany 
seized  that  port.  We  would  refer  the  gentlemen  to  the  case 
of  Burmah  where  Great  Britain  seized  land  in  the  same  year. 
So  that  if  this  question  of  ours  means  anything,  it  means  that 
on  the  day  set  for  payment  by  the  Hague  tribunal  there  is 
an  amount  of  money  or  its  equivalent  due  to  the  creditor 
state ;  that  the  extinguishment  of  the  debt  was  contemplated 
on  that  day,  and  that  any  policy  by  which  that  debt  shall  con- 
tinue after  the  date  set  is  a  nullification  of  the  Hague  tribunal 
award.  We  say,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  no  less  than  the 
gentlemen  of  the  negative,  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  has 
been  a  splendid  policy  in  the  past.  We  say  that  under  ordi- 
nary conditions  that  policy  should  be  maintained,  but  we  say 
that  when  that  policy  interferes  with  the  exercise  of  a  just 
legal  right,  where  it  interferes  with  an  arbitration  award  and 
overthrows  the  principle  of  arbitration  for  which  the  United 
States  has  stood  first  of  all  among  the  nations  of  the  world, 
in  that  case  that  doctrine  must  in  all  justice  and  honor  yield. 
In  taking  that  position  we  are  very  far  from  abandoning  the 
doctrine  and  allowing  European  states  to  come  in  under  any 
conditions.  We  confine  the  case  to  a  case  of  absolute  right  on 
the  part  of  the  European  state.  We  still  maintain  the  right 
to  protect  the  South  American  states  in  a  case  where  they  are 
deserving  of  protection.  We  still  maintain  the  right  to  pre- 
vent oppression  of  every  sort  on  the  part  of  a  European 
nation.  We  simply  give  up  the  power  to  protect  the  South 


APPENDIX  647 

American  state  in  dishonesty  and  willful  wrongdoing.  In 
supporting  this  sort  of  Monroe  .doctrine,  we  say  that  we  can 
still  exercise  it  in  every  case  where  it  has  been  exercised  in 
"the  past.  Take  the  case  of  1823.  There  it  was  used  to  pre- 
vent an  alliance  from  subjugating  the  South  American  states. 
We  could  use  it  again  in  a  case  like  that  of  1867  when  France 
attempted  to  force  an  empire  on  the  republic  of  Mexico.  In 
a  word,  we  would  retain  the  Monroe  doctrine  intact  in  every 
instance  except  where  it  conflicts  with  the  just  rights  of  a 
European  state  and  overthrows  the  principle  of  arbitration. 
In  adopting  this  policy  we  will  teach  the  South  American 
states  an  invaluable  lesson  in  international  morality.  These 
states  to-day,  according  to  no  less  an  authority  than  the 
famous  author  of  The  American  Commonwealth,  are  lax  in 
meeting  their  obligations.  Our  policy  will  teach  them  first 
of  all  responsibility  ;  it  will  teach  them  that  pledges  are  made 
to  be  kept  and  not  broken ;  it  will  teach  them  that  national 
debts  are  to  be  paid ;  that  if  these  nations  would  take  their 
places  among  the  nations  of  the  world  they  must  assume 
responsibilities ;  it  will  teach  them  moreover  respect  for  the 
principles  of  arbitration  ;  it  will  teach  them  that  if  they  desire 
fair  play  they  must  grant  fair  play  themselves.  They  will 
learn  that  consent  to  arbitrate  means  to  abide  by  the  award 
and  that  the  United  States  will  be  unwilling  to  insist  upon 
arbitration  where  adherence  to  the  award  is  not  a  matter  of 
absolute  certainty.  It  will  teach  them  that  the  strong  republic 
of  the  north  will  protect  them  where  their  cause  is  just  but 
will  not  protect  them  in  the  repudiation  of  an  honest  obliga- 
tion. It  will  teach  them  not  to  make  their  weakness  a  cloak 
for  their  wrongdoing.  By  teaching  them  these  lessons  in 
international  morality,  it  will  not  only  do  this,  but  it  will 
prevent  a  recurrence  of  those  conditions  which  have  made  our 
question  possible  to-night.  Let  a  South  American  state  once 
realize  that  the  United  States  will  not  protect  it  in  contin- 
gencies of  this  sort ;  that  the  loss  of  land  is  a  certainty  under 
conditions  such  as  these,  and  it  will  soon  learn  not  to  allow 


648  APPENDIX 

these  conditions  to  arise  again.     So  the  entering  wedge  of 
which  the  gentleman  speaks  is  but  a  myth. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  this  policy  of  ours  will  not  only  do 
justice  to  the  European  states,  it  will  not  only  uphold  the 
arbitration  principle  intact,  it  will  not  only  teach  the  South 
American  states  invaluable  lessons  in  responsibility,  respect 
for  arbitration  and  international  self-reliance,  but  it  will  give 
the  United  States  a  position  unique  among  the  nations  of  the 
world.  It  will  show  these  nations  that  there  is  one  strong 
power  above  the  petty  bickerings  of  the  Old  World ;  that  there 
is  one  power  that  will  not  allow  selfish  considerations  to 
weigh  against  honesty  and  justice.  It  will  show  these  people 
that  there  is  one  power  that  stands  for  justice  in  every  instance 
whether  that  justice  conflicts  with  an  arbitrary  policy  or  not. 

SECOND  SPEAKER  FOB  THE  NEGATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  We  too  would  punish  the  South 
American  state  and  teach  it  never  to  do  so  again.  We  would 
bombard  it,  blockade  it,  punish  it  in  any  way,  but  take  its 
land,  its  very  life  blood,  never!  The  gentleman  has  spoken 
of  Germany  seizing  the  port  of  Kiau  Chau,  but  I  would  have 
you  notice  that  China  merely  ceded  the  port  to  Germany  — 
that  Germany  did  not  seize  it  permanently,  and  that  it  was 
taken,  not  in  payment  of  money  claim,  but  as  a  punishment 
for  killing  German  missionaries.  The  resolve  of  the  affirma- 
tive to  always  permit  the  seizure  of  land,  regardless  of  cir- 
cumstances, is  too  indiscriminate  and  means  the  abandonment 
of  our  policy  and  the  dismemberment  of  the  South  American 
states.  I  wish  to  show  you  how  this  seizure  of  land  will 
menace  the  welfare  of  the  United  States.  Glance  for  an 
instant  at  the  history  of  Europe  for  one  hundred  years.  It 
has  been  a  history  of  war  and  quarrels  between  neighboring 
states,  each  nation  forced  to  exhaust  its  resources  in  main- 
taining armies  against  its  restless,  jealous  neighbors.  But 
the  United  States  is  free  to  devote  all  its  energy  to  industry, 


APPENDIX  649 

commerce  and  the  arts  of  peace,  for  it  is  protected   from 
all  dangerous  neighbors  by  three  thousand  miles  of  ocean. 
England  to  be  sure  owns  Canada,  but  there  is  little  reason  to 
fear  that  we  shall  ever  again  have  war  with  England.     All 
the  other  great  world  powers  own  scarcely  a  foot  of  land  in 
this  hemisphere.     Warlike  Germany,  for  instance,  owns  prac- 
tically no  land  within  three  thousand  miles.     Without  a  base 
I  of  operations,  hostile  fleets  could  not  live  for  six  weeks  on 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic.     For  eighty  years  the  United  States 
has  stood  secure  and  we  must  never  allow  Europe  to  lodge 
|  near  us.     Through  the   storm  and  stress  of  these  wars  we 
j  have  held  to  this  policy,  and  we  stand  to-day  tranquil  and 
secure  in  our  ocean  stronghold.     But  this  priceless  policy  the 
affirmative  proposes  we  shall  give  up.    We  shall  allow  Europe 
{  not  merely  coaling  stations  but   great  bases   of  operations. 
I  That  the  Panama  canal  shall  be  kept  open  is  of  vital  impor- 
j  tance  to  the  whole  world.     Columbia  and  the  United  States 
!  alone   guarantee   its   neutrality  and   in   time    of   war   what 
I  would  Columbia's  guarantee  be  worth  ?     Allow  the  German 
!  empire  a  base  of  operations  in  Venezuela  and  our  shores 
1  would  be  exposed,  and  the  great  canal,  to-day  well-nigh  unas- 
sailable, would  be  at  the  mercy  of  Europe.     Does  not  this 
constitute  a  menace  to  our  welfare  ?     If  we  are  to  be  assail- 
i  able  we  too  must  have  great  armies  and  a  great  navy ;  we  too 
must  devote  to  militarism  that  energy  which  is  to-day  making 
us  the  greatest  industrial  nation  of  the  world.     Is  not  this  a 
menace  to  our  welfare  ?     Not  only  are  we  now  free  from  war 
and  its  burdens,  but  from  all  the  disputes  and  friction  and 
diplomatic  entanglements  which  never  fail  to  arise  between 
neighboring  states.     See  the  United  States  and  Canada  —  the 
Alaskan  boundary   dispute,  the  northeast  fisheries   dispute. 
If  we  have  these  and  fifty  other  squabbles  with  Canada,  our 
friend,  imagine  the  friction  that  would  ensue  were  France 
and  Russia  and  Italy  and  Germany  lodged  near  us.     Take 
the  case  which  is   in  all   our  minds    to-night  —  Venezuela. 
Suppose  she   had   free   trade.     England,  France,   Germany, 


650  APPENDIX 


Spain,  Italy,  Belgium  ,  all  have  claims  against  Venezuela. 
Suppose  England  gets  a  decision  from  the  Hague  tribunal 
and  seizes  land.  Just  as  if  a  business  man  becomes  bank- 
rupt, if  one  creditor  goes  to  law  all  the  other  creditors  are 
forced  to  follow  suit.  So  allow  England  to  seize  Venezuelan 
land,  and  the  other  creditor  nations  may  also  demand  land, 
and  can  we  consistently  deny  to  Germany  and  Italy  what  we 
have  allowed  to  England?  Imagine  nine  nations  grabbing 
slices  of  Venezuela;  nine  nations  wrangling  over  how  much 
land  shall  be  taken;  whose  land  shall  be  where.  Such  a 
squabble  the  United  States  would  be  inevitably  involved  in. 
And  this  is  the  result  in  an  actually  existing  case  of  the 
resolution  of  the  affirmative.  Is  not  this  a  menace  to  the 
welfare  of  the  United  States  ? 

But  there  is  another  consideration.  Since  their  birth  we 
have  watched  over  the  little  republics  of  South  America  as 
they  have  struggled  to  work  out  the  great  problem  of  self- 
government.  For  eighty  years  we  have  protected  them,  and 
shall  we  now  allow  the  worst  injustice  that  can  be  done  to 
any  state,  allow  their  land  to  be  taken  from  them  ?  The  law 
punishes  the  mechanic  and  the  lawyer,  but  it  never  takes 
from  the  mechanic  his  tools  or  from  the  lawyer  his  books. 
So  with  the  defaulting  republic ;  bombard  it,  blockade  it, 
punish  it  in  any  way ;  but  to  cripple  it  by  depriving  it  of  its 
land,  a  portion  of  its  sovereignty,  is  an  act  unwarranted  by 
all  the  precedents  of  civilization.  Not  only  is  it  unjust  to 
take  any  land,  but  once  allow  Italy  or  Germany  to  be  lodged 
in  Venezuela  and  what  is  to  prevent  their  taking  more  land 
or  destroying  this  republic?  Russia  took  a  little  strip  of 
Poland.  Austria  and  Prussia  joined  in,  and  to-day  where  is 
Poland  ?  The  justice  of  the  policy  we  advocate  has  been 
acknowledged  by  the  European  powers.  "Her  Majesty's 
government  concurs  in  the  opinion  that  any  fresh  acquisition 
in  the  western  hemisphere  would  be  an  inexpedient  change." 
Mr.  Balfour  says  that  England  has  striven  to  help  the  pres- 
ervation of  the  Monroe  doctrine.  In  the  recent  dispute 


APPENDIX  651 

England  and  Germany  sent  us  assurances  that  they  would 
seize  no  land. 

In  1899  this  government  and  all  the  great  powers  assem- 
bled at  the  Hague,  and  our  representatives  reserved  the  right 
again  that  has  been  enforced  for  eighty  years,  and  never  has 
Europe  entered  one  formal  protest  against  it.  If  this  is  the 
attitude  of  the  European  powers,  shall  we  now  abandon  a 
policy  that  renders  this  country  unassailable?  Abandon  the 
policy  of  Washington  and  Jefferson,  of  Calhoun  and  Webster, 
of  Lincoln  and  Garfield,  of  Cleveland  and  Eoosevelt !  Aban- 
don now  the  one  great  policy  for  which  the  United  States 
has  stood  for  eighty  years,  and  all  this  for  a  paltry  claim  of 
money ! 

THIRD  SPEAKER  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  The  affirmative  has  no  desire  to 
abandon  the  grand  and  glorious  policy  of  the  United  States. 
We  simply  say  that  when  that  policy  protects  injustice,  when 
that  policy  protects  irresponsibility  and  dishonesty,  that 
policy  ought  to  be  modified.  The  gentleman's  contention  is 
that  the  retention  of  this  small  section  of  South  American 
territory  will  constitute  a  danger  to  the  United  States.  It  is 
very  noticeable  that  the  gentleman  has  not  pointed  out  the 
definite  danger.  He  has  spoken  of  danger  to  the  mainland  of 
the  United  States.  Doubtless  he  realizes  that  Venezuela  is 
two  thousand  miles  from  New  Orleans.  He  realizes  doubtless 
that  portions  of  the  rivers  Rio  Grande  and  Amazon  are  twice 
as  far  from  the  United  States  as  are  the  rivers  of  Germany. 
Just  how  proximity  is  going  to  endanger  the  United  States 
the  gentleman  has  not  made  entirely  clear.  I  would  like  to 
ask  the  gentleman  if  he  remembers  that  ever  since  its  birth 
as  a  nation  the  United  States  has  been  surrounded,  north, 
east,  and  south,  by  the  naval  stations  in  the  power  of  European 
nations.  Canada  is  stretched  all  across  the  north.  He  has 
referred  to  disputes  between  Canada  and  the  United  States, 
but  the  thing  to  remember  is  that  those  disputes  have  been 


652  APPENDIX 

settled  by  arbitration,  and  if  the  gentleman  throws  over  arbi- 
tration to-night,  how  will  such  disputes  be  settled  in  the 
future?  Down  in  the  South  until  recently  Cuba  and  Porto 
Eico  have  been  in  the  power  of  a  European  state.  Five  hun- 
dred miles  away  is  Jamaica  which  has  been  for  a  score  of 
years  in  the  possession  of  the  strongest  naval  power  in  the 
world.  The  United  States  has  proclaimed  its  right  to  protect 
the  new  canal.  If  the  gentleman  has  followed  the  discussion 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  he  will  find  that  Senator 
Spooner  has  said  over  and  over  again  that  the  United  States 
retains  the  right  to  own,  operate,  maintain  and  fortify  the 
canal.  When  you  remember  that  the  United  States  must 
protect  the  canal  against  the  naval  stations  of  European 
powers  set  within  a  few  hundred  miles  of  the  canal,  will  not 
these  measures  also  protect  it  against  these  small  sections  of 
South  America  of  which  we  are  speaking  to-night?  Another 
thing  to  remember  is  that  the  United  States  is  the  preponder- 
ating power  in  the  Caribbean  Sea.  Captain  Mahan  says  of 
Porto  Rico  :  "  Porto  Rico  is  to  the  future  Isthmian  canal  what 
Malta  is  to  Egypt."  With  Porto  Rico  in  the  possession  of  the 
United  States,  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  any  European 
fleet  to  maintain  operations  in  the  Caribbean  Sea.  The 
United  States  has  also  retained  the  right  to  establish  naval 
stations  in  Cuba.  Captain  Mahan  says  that  when  compared 
to  Cuba  even  Jamaica  cannot  be  considered  a  supporting  point 
to  the  United  States. 

It  is  not  any  trifling  thing,  it  is  not  any  remote  or  indefinite 
thing  that  will  warrant  our  interference  in  the  affairs  of 
another  state.  All  the  authorities  of  international  law  agree 
that  it  must  be  an  important  and  pressing  danger  to  the 
interests  and  security  of  the  United  States.  But  the  gentle- 
man is  very  much  alarmed  that  this  will  be  an  opening  wedge 
and  allow  a  dozen  European  states  to  grab  a  great  deal  more 
South  American  territory.  The  question  we  are  discussing 
to-night,  the  presuppositions  of  our  question  to-night,  say  that 
there  is  one  European  state  and  one  only,  and  the  affirmative 


APPENDIX  653 

is  not  called  upon  to  defend  all  these  things  that  the  gentle- 
man has  been  speaking  about.  There  is  one  European  state 
that  has  arbitrated  its  claim ;  one  state  that  has  established 
its  claim  according  to  international  authority,  proceeds  to 
seize  and  hold  territory  of  the  debtor  state.  But  there  is, 
ladies  and  gentlemen,  a  pressing  danger  to  the  United  States 
which  the  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative  and  the  negative  must 
keep  in  mind,  and  that  is  this :  If  the  United  States  insists 
upon  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  two  sovereign  states  where 
she  has  no  right  to  interfere,  the  injured  European  govern- 
ment will  resist  with  the  full  strength  of  her  navy.  In  1895 
we  were  in  imminent  danger  of  war  with  England  because  we 
compelled  her  to  arbitrate  her  claims.  If  after  those  claims 
were  arbitrated,  after  England's  right  had  been  established  to 
that  territory,  the  United  States  had  said,  "Your  claim  is 
legitimate  but  it  is  contrary  to  our  interests  for  you  to  fulfill 
your  just  rights,"  every  gun  of  the  British  navy  would  have 
been  brought  to  bear  on  the  United  States,  and,  if  we  had  been 
Englishmen,  we  would  have  been  the  men  behind  the  guns. 

There  is  a  right  to  this  question.  On  the  day  of  the  default 
that  European  nation  has  a  right  to  immediate  and  complete 
payment  of  its  claim.  If  the  South  American  power  had  pre- 
sented the  money  the  claim  would  have  been  settled.  After 
the  day  set  for  payment  there  was  to  be  no  continuation  of 
the  debt.  That  debt  was  to  be  wiped  out.  The  state  not 
getting  the  money  had  the  right  to  demand  the  only  other 
means  of  payment,  and  that  is  land.  And  the  European  state 
is  going  to  assert  its  rights  in  international  law.  A  few  years 
ago  the  United  States  had  occasion  to  collect  money  claims 
against  Turkey.  We  sent  our  battle  ships  over  to  Turkey,  If 
Germany  had  stepped  in  and  said,  "  You  must  arbitrate  this 
claim,"  our  Yankee  blood  would  have  boiled  to  the  fighting 
point.  If  we  had  established  our  claims,  after  they  had  been 
settled  by  arbitration  and  we  had  a  right  to  take  lawful  means 
to  obtain  satisfaction  of  the  debt,  and  Germany  had  said, 
"  You  are  a  Western  hemisphere  power,  you  cannot  collect  your 


654  APPENDIX 

debt  over  here,"  how  would  the  United  States  have  resisted 
such  unwarranted  interference  ?  The  gentlemen  may  say  they 
would  not  have  allowed  the  United  States  to  seize  territory.  Of 
course  not ;  the  United  States  would  have  no  desire  to  seize  ter- 
ritory. The  point  is  this  :  If  the  United  States  were  proceeding 
according  to  methods  themselves  lawful,  in  the  enforcement 
of  their  claim,  then  Germany  would  have  no  right  to  interfere. 
Then  there  is  the  danger  of  war  if  the  United  States  insist 
upon  interfering  with  these  states,  and  it  is  no  remote  or 
imaginary  danger;  it  is  an  immediate  and  pressing  danger, 
and  the  position  taken  by  the  negative  means  to-night  that 
for  the  sake  of  protecting  our  interests  against  a  remote  and 
indefinite  danger  they  would  plunge  the  United  States  into  the 
danger  of  an  immediate  and  unjust  war,  because  that  European 
nation,  recognizing  its  rights,  will  insist  upon  those  rights. 

And  finally  there  is  another  danger,  greater  than  the  danger 
to  the  United  States,  and  that  is  the  danger  to  the  cause  of 
arbitration.  In  our  question  to-night  the  European  nation 
has  submitted  to  arbitration,  and  by  mutal  consent  the  debtor 
state  has  also  consented  to  arbitration.  We  are  discussing 
to-night  a  violation  of  a  decision  of  the  Hague  tribunal.  It 
has  been  violated  and  disregarded,  and  the  gentlemen  of  the 
negative  are  asking  the  United  States  to  insist  upon  the  Mon- 
roe doctrine.  Interference  is  a  doctrine  of  pure  force.  They 
are  asking  the  United  States  to  assist  by  a  doctrine  of  pure 
force  a  violation  of  one  of  the  decisions  of  the  world's  highest 
tribunal  of  peace,  and  it  is  not  right.  There  is  justice  to  be 
considered  in  our  question  to-night. 

THIRD  SPEAKER  FOR  THE  NEGATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  True,  we  helped  establish  the 
Hague  tribunal,  but  in  signing  this  convention  our  delegates 
made  a  reservation ;  they  asserted  that  in  signing  it  the 
United  States  did  not  give  up  its  traditional  policy.  If  the 
Hague  tribunal  itself  should  have  given  a  decision  of  land, 


APPENDIX  655 

the  United  States  would  not  have  been  bound  by  it  because 
we  made  that  reservation.  The  case  of  Turkey  has  been  men- 
tioned here.  We  have  been  asked,  Would  the  United  States 
have  brooked  interference  by  Europe?  Did  we  try  to  seize 
land,  do  you  think  for  one  moment  that  England  or  any  other 
nation  of  Europe  would  allow  us  to  seize  land  in  Turkey? 
The  gentleman  says  he  would  not  have  allowed  it  because 
we  would  not  want  to  seize  land.  The  case  of  Venezuela  has 
been  mentioned.  That  case  is  not  applicable ;  there  is  no 
question  in  that  case  that  can  be  discussed  in  this  debate. 
It  has  been  argued  here  that  there  would  be  only  one  state. 
The  position  is  that  if  there  was  one  state  that  goes  to  the 
tribunal  and  gets  an  award  the  European  creditor  may  seize 
land,  but  if  there  are  two  or  ten  creditor  states  that  go  to  the 
Hague  tribunal  and  then  there  is  a  default  by  the  debtor 
state,  land  cannot  be  taken.  Do  you  think  the  United  States 
can  uphold  such  a  policy  ?  It  has  been  suggested  that  we 
allow  this  seizure  of  land  to  punish  the  South  American  state. 
President  Eoosevelt  in  his  message  of  December  3, 1901,  says 
that  the  Monroe  doctrine  does  not  guarantee  any  state  against 
punishment,  provided  that  it  does  not  take  the  form  of  acqui- 
sition of  territory  by  a  non-American  power.  Punish  the 
state,  but  never  take  its  land  !  Secretary  Foster  who  is  to 
assist  in  settling  the  Alaskan  boundary  question  says  that 
the  Monroe  doctrine  means  that  no  land  can  be  permanently 
held  by  any  non-American  state  in  this  hemisphere.  The 
proposition  of  the  affirmative  is  too  broad.  It  affirms  that 
we  have  no  interest  in  South  America  and  can  have  none. 
Every  one  must  admit  that  we  have  some  interest  in  South 
America,  and  in  this  debate  we  have  shown  that  our  interests 
are  many.  The  affirmative  asserts  that  wherever  in  South 
America  these  conditions  exist  we  should  allow  land  to  be 
taken  regardless  of  what  our  interests  may  be,  regardless  of 
where  the  land  is  situated,  regardless  of  the  reason  why  the 
debtor  state  has  defaulted,  regardless  of  the  purpose  with 
which  the  European  state  seizes  the  land,  regardless  of  aU 


656  APPENDIX 

other  conditions.  The  negative  has  maintained  the  position 
of  upholding  the  policy  in  force  for  nearly  a  century  and 
founded  on  principles  recognized  by  international  law,  a  policy 
which  at  once  strengthens  our  position  for  self-defense  and 
gives  us  the  right  to  interfere  to  protect  the  South  American 
states  from  oppression.  What  would  become  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine  if  we  allowed  land  to  be  taken?  Would  it  ever  be 
respected  again?  Either  of  these  grounds  is  sufficient  for 
our  case,  but  since  the  gentlemen  wish  to  discuss  the  justice 
of  the  situation  it  will  be  my  purpose  to  show  you  that  to 
seize  land  in  this  case  would  be  an  act  of  injustice  against  the 
debtor  state  since  the  award  might  be  enforced  without  actual 
war.  The  gentlemen  ask  us  how.  It  might  be  enforced  by 
sending  battle  ships  and  if  necessary  establishing  an  actual 
blockade.  Technically  this  would  be  war,  but  in  this  case  it 
would  not  constitute  a  state  of  war.  Since  the  South  Ameri- 
can state  has  absolute  free  trade,  not  even  a  tariff  for  revenue 
only,  an  actual  blockade  by  stopping  all  commerce  would 
quickly  bring  her  to  terms.  Another  way  of  satisfying  the 
award  would  be  to  seize  ships  in  reprisal  as  in  '62  and  '63 
Great  Britain  seized  ships.  Still  another  way  is  suggested 
by  the  question  itself.  Because  the  government  of  the  South 
American  state  has  absolutely  no  tariff  at  the  time  of  the 
default,  it  does  not  prevent  the  creditor  nation  from  seizing 
the  port  and  levying  a  tariff.  In  China,  Sir  Robert  Hart 
has  for  years  successfully  administered  a  tariff.  This  would 
be  a  fair  and  satisfactory  way  of  satisfying  the  claims  even 
if  the  state  defaulted  because  it  had  no  money  at  the  time  of 
the  default.  Still  another  way  would  be  to  seize  certain  ports 
and  hold  them  temporarily.  The  negative  does  not  object  to 
a  temporary  retention  of  land,  but  we  do  object  to  the  per- 
manent holding  of  territory.  We  would  point  out  that  Ger- 
many in  seizing  this  port  in  China  has  taken  a  ninety-nine 
years'  lease  and  has  not  taken  it  permanently.  There  are 
many  ways  in  which  the  money  award  might  be  enforced 
without  war.  The  creditor  nation  who  would  throw  away 


APPENDIX  657 

the  award  and  seize  land  and  hold  it  permanently  talks  of 
justice,  and  the  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative  urge  the  justice 
of  seizing  land  when  methods  of  collecting  exist.  Now  let 
us  consider  the  practical  difficulties  and  serious  consequences 
of  the  plan  of  the  affirmative.  In  what  portion  of  the  country 
is  the  land  to  be  seized?  Who  is  to  determine  its  value? 
Are  interested  persons  to  determine  its  value  ?  To  bring  this 
question  home  to  us,  take  the  case  most  commonly  in  mind. 
If  Venezuela  had  free  trade  and  should  default  in  the  pay- 
ment of  a  claim  held  against  her  by  a  European  nation,  then 
that  European  nation  would  have  the  right  to  seize  land  and 
hold  it  permanently.  How  long  would  Venezuela  remain  a 
free  republic  with  ten  European  nations  permanently  holding 
land  along  her  coast?  How  long  before  the  United  States 
would  be  drawn  into  conflict  with  these  European  nations? 
If  this  would  not  be  extending  the  European  system  to  our 
shores,  what  would? 

The  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative  have  said  that  if  this 
award  is  not  paid  at  the  time  set  for  payment,  if  the  creditor 
nation  could  not  get  some  security,  there  would  be  a  nullifi- 
cation of  arbitration.  But  while  we  have  pointed  out  ways 
of  enforcing  the  award,  the  plan  of  the  affirmative  in  every 
case  means  actual  war,  for  when  we  consider  the  temperament 
of  the  people  of  our  South  American  states  it  becomes  appar- 
ent that  no  nation  would  allow  its  territory  to  be  taken  and 
held  without  a  life-and-death  struggle.  With  this  means  of 
collection  of  the  debt,  if  the  debt  is  not  paid,  on  the  day  of 
the  default,  or  if  some  security  is  not  obtained,  how  about 
this  case?  Suppose  there  was  a  war  as  long  as  the  Boer 
war.  From  this  consideration  of  the  causes  of  such  a  war 
it  would  seem  that  no  nation  would  take  this  method  of  satis- 
fying a  debt  unless  the  land  was  desired  for  use  against  this 
country.  In  either  case,  debt  or  no  debt,  the  United  States 
is  bound  to  prevent  the  permanent  retention  of  land.  From 
this  discussion  of  the  practical  diffioultirs  and  sorious  conse- 
quences in  the  way  of  the  position  of  the  affirmative  it  is 


658  APPENDIX 

seen  that  they  would  be  so  great  as  first  to  threaten  thu 
existence  of  the  republics  of  South  America,  and  inevitably 
to  draw  the  United  States  into  complications  with  European 
states. 

In  this  debate  we  have  shown  that  the  position  of  the 
affirmative  is  too  broad  to  be  statesmanlike;  that  it  means 
the  abandonment  of  a  policy  which  we  have  shown  our  right 
to  maintain ;  that  it  subverts  rather  than  favors  the  cause  of 
arbitration ;  that  in  every  case  it  means  actual  war.  We  have 
shown  that  the  award  might  be  collected  without  actual  war ; 
that  no  nation  would  take  this  expensive  means  of  enforcing 
the  award  unless  the  land  was  wanted  as  an  opening  wedge  j 
and  lastly  that  the  practical  difficulties  and  serious  conse- 
quences would  be  so  great  as  to  threaten  the  very  existence 
of  the  South  American  states  and  inevitably  draw  the  United 
States  into  conflicts  with  European  governments. 

FIRST  REBUTTAL  SPEECH  FOB  THE  NEGATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  The  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative 
have  said  that  our  interference  in  South  America  would  inevi 
tably  result  in  war.  I  would  point  out  to  you  the  fact  that 
we  have  interfered  in  South  America  twenty  times  in  the  past 
and  war  has  never  come.  We  have  interfered  to  prevent  one 
European  nation  transferring  its  own  territory  to  another 
nation  and  war  has  never  come.  And  I  ask  whether  any  one 
in  this  audience  to-night  can  believe  that  any  European  nation 
would  risk  a  war  with  the  greatest  power  in  the  Western 
hemisphere  merely  to  collect  a  few  dollars  which  it  could 
collect  without  a  war  by  waiting.  I  could  show  you  that  all 
the  European  nations  have  recognized  the  justice  of  our  policy, 
and  are  they  going  to  make  war  now  against  a  policy  they 
have  recognized  to  be  just?  The  affirmative  must  prove  that 
war  would  result  in  every  instance  where  we  interfere,  for 
unless  they  prove  that  war  would  result  in  every  instance 
they  would  be  maintaining  that  because  war  might  happen 


APPENDIX  659 

time  we  should  allow  the  seizure  of  land  when  there  is 
no  necessity  of  it.  The  gentleman  has  denied  the  isolation 
of  the  United  States  and  said  there  is  no  danger  to  it.  Let 
me  give  you  one  instance  and  then  say  whether  we  are  isolated 
from  danger.  There  are  in  the  world  to-day  four  great  world 
powers  ;  the  United  States,  England,  Russia  and  Germany. 
England  is  our  friend/Russia's  interests  are  in  a  far  part  of 
the  world.  Should  then  the  United  States  ever  become 
involved  in  a  great  struggle,  it  would  be  with  Germany.  She 
is  a  great  and  powerful  nation,  with  every  citizen  a  trained 
soldier.  Her  leaders  are  men  of  unyielding  will  and  vast 
ambition.  Germany  is  extending  her  possessions  and  her 
statesmen  are  openly  discussing  the  possibilities  of  South 
America.  Moreover  the  whole  world  knows  that  her  policy 
is  hostile  to  the  United  States  and  that  she  is  jealous  of  our 
industrial  success.  To-day  Germany  could  not  menace  us  for 
she  owns  practically  no  land  within  three  thousand  miles. 
Allow  Germany  a  foothold  in  South  America  and  we  would 
have  the  devil's  own  time  with  her.  Can  you  forget  the 
destruction  in  time  of  peace  of  Venezuelan  property  ?  If  the 
United  States  allowed  such  a  dynamite  factory  as  Germany  on 
the  shores  of  South  America,  there  would  be  in  time  of  war 
an  instant  explosion  against  our  shores,  and  in  time  of  peace 
there  would  be  constant  dangers.  An  eminent  historian  has 
said  that  should  Germany  be  lodged  in  Brazil  there  would  be 
friction  between  the  United  States  and  Germany  all  the  time. 
I  point  this  out  to  you  as  a  single  instance  of  why  we  say  we 
are  to-day  isolated  from  danger. 

The  gentlemen  have  referred  to  a  single  instance  of  seizure 
of  land.  I  would  point  out  that  no  South  American  country 
to-day  owes  money  to  only  one  European  creditor.  When  a 
run  on  a  bank  starts  the  depositors  are  forced  to  join  in  the 
rush  for  self-protection,  so  if  one  nation  seizes  land  all  the 
other  nations  will  be  forced  to  seize  land,  and  there  will  be 
not  one  but  many  seizures  of  land. 


660  APPENDIX 


FIRST  EEBUTTAL  SPEECH  FOB  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen :  The  gentleman  who  has  preceded 
me  is  alarmed  lest  there  shall  be  a  great  number  of  seizures 
of  South  American  territory.  Allow  me  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  before  there  can  be  any  seizure  of  land  the 
Hague  tribunal  has  had  to  decide  the  legitimacy  of  the  claim ; 
that  the  Hague  tribunal  has  to  tell  these  nations  how  long 
they  have  got  to  wait  before  they  can  recover  the  amount  of 
their  claims.  I  ask  the  gentleman  what  these  presuppositions 
were  put  in  for  if  we  were  not  to  discuss  claims  decided  by 
that  tribunal.  It  is  important  to  consider  the  position  of  the 
Hague  tribunal  as  to  our  discussion.  This  decision  meant 
payment  on  a  certain  date.  It  meant  immediate  and  com- 
plete payment  on  that  date.  It  meant  that  payment  must  be 
made  in  money  or  its  equivalent  —  land.  The  Hague  tribunal 
considered  all  the  circumstances.  It  said,  This  length  of  time 
that  we  have  allowed  will  give  the  debtor  ample  time.  Now 
then,  if  on  the  date  set  for  payment  this  money  is  not  forth- 
coming, then  the  creditor  nation  has  a  right  to  seize  the  only 
other  method  of  collecting  payment,  and  that  is  to  take  land ; 
and  if  the  gentlemen  object  to  the  seizure  of  land  they  object 
to  the  decision  of  the  Hague  tribunal,  and  therefore  they  deal 
a  blow  to  the  whole  cause  of  arbitration.  For  if  we  allow 
this  precedent  to  be  established  that  one  nation  can  interfere 
to  interpret  the  decision  of  the  Hague  tribunal,  then  you  deal 
a  blow  to  the  whole  cause  of  arbitration.  We  believe  that 
there  comes  a  time  in  the  lives  of  nations  when  personal  con- 
siderations must  yield  to  considerations  of  public  duty,  —  duty 
to  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  The  European  nation  has 
said,  We  are  going  to  take  this  legal  method  of  satisfying  our 
claim.  We  have  a  right  to  take  any  method  that  is  legal  and 
is  precedented.  If  I  am  doing  something  lawful,  what 
right  has  another  man  to  say,  You  cannot  take  this  method  ? 
It  is  not  suggesting  to  another  power  to  take  another  means, 
it  is  compelling  them  to  take  another  means,  and  that  is  why 


APPENDIX  661 

I  say  they  will  go  to  war  with  the  United  States,  and  that 
unjust  war  is  the  result  of  the  position  of  the  gentlemen  of 
the  negative.  They  have  suggested  several  alternatives  for 
the  seizure  of  land.  Each  one  of  those  alternatives  says  that 
after  the  date  appointed  by  the  arbitration  award  the  debt 
shall  continue.  That  award  meant  that  the  debt  should  be 
wiped  out.  Their  method  say's  the  debt  shall  be  continued 
indefinitely.  It  is  a  dilatory  method  of  payment,  and  no  such 
method  will  meet  the  award  of  the  tribunal.  That  is  why  we 
are  justified  in  saying  that  this  is  a  violation  of  the  Hague 
tribunal's  intention.  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
words  of  Secretary  Root,  "Any  man  who  watches  the  signs 
of  the  times  will  see  that  the  American  people  will  either 
have  to  abandon  the  Monroe  doctrine  or  fight  for  it."  The 
Secretary  of  War  thinks  we  shall  have  to  fight  for  it.  If 
we  stretch  this  Monroe  doctrine  so  that  it  will  protect  irre- 
sponsibility, so  that  it  will  interfere  with  the  rights  of  Euro- 
pean states  ;  if  we  stretch  the  Monroe  doctrine  contrary  to 
justice  and  fair  dealing  and  international  fairness  we  shall 
have  to  fight  for  it. 

SECOND  E-EBUTTAL  SPEECH  FOB  THE  NEGATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  We  have  pointed  out  a  way  in 
which  the  award  of  the  Hague  tribunal  might  be  collected. 
The  affirmative  does  not  propose  to  collect  the  award  but  to 
jseize  land,  and  the  only  objection  the  affirmative  have  had  to 
|offer  to  these  ways  of  collecting  the  award  is  that  while  the 
tdebt  was  being  collected  the  debt  must  still  continue  to  exist. 
!ln  our  first  speeches  we  pointed  out  to  you  that  they  would 
pot  allow  their  soil  to  be  seized  without  a  life-and-death 
{struggle.  Let  us  ask  the  gentlemen  what  would  become  of 
[the  debt  during  this  struggle.  Would  it  continue 'to  exist, 
or  would  it  be  wiped  out  on  the  very  day  of  the  default  ?  In 
our  first  speeches  we  pointed  out  that  if  you  allow  the  seiz- 
ure of  land  in 'this  case  you  must  allow  it  in  cases  where  there 


662  APPENDIX 

has  been  no  award.  The  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative  say 
they  propose  to  allow  the  seizure  of  land  only  in  cases  where 
there  has  been  an  award.  Very  well,  but  suppose  the  debtor 
states  refuse  to  arbitrate  and  refuse  to  pay  the  debt.  If 
the  state  refuses  to  arbitrate,  then  we  will  not  allow  the  land 
to  be  taken.  Again,  suppose  a  case  of  the  default  of  a 
debtor  state  to  pay  an  undisputed  debt,  we  must  allow  the 
seizure  of  land  in  that  case.  The  debt  being  undisputed  there 
would  be  nothing  to  go  to  the  Hague  tribunal  about,  and  yet 
we  could  not  deny  the  right  of  the  creditor  nation  to  take 
land  when  there  was  nothing  to  arbitrate  about.  We  cannot 
interfere.  Would  we  be  immediately  endangered  by  the 
acquisition  of  land  by  a  foreign  nation  on  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama?  Would  Europe  be  endangered  if  we  acquired  land 
in  Turkey?  Yet  she  would  not  allow  that.  We  as  states- 
men must  think  of  the  future.  If  other  nations  were  here 
in  1823,  if  they  do  not  menace  us  now,  why  was  it  that  in 
1823  this  document  was  issued  by  President  Monroe?  We 
must  have  an  interest  in  South  America,  and  if  we  have  an 
interest,  we  have  a  right  to  see  that  injustice  is  not  perpe- 
trated. We  have  shown  you  that  to  seize  land  is  an  injustice. 
If  you  admit  that  you  must  admit  our  case.  It  is  compara- 
tively easy  to  keep  European  nations  out  of  South  America, 
but  once  let  them  in  and  the  very  weakness  of  the  country  is 
sufficient  cause  for  their  spreading.  They  may  have  to  con- 
quer the  entire  territory  in  order  to  have  a  suitable  govern- 
ment in  existence  where  they  have  taken  land.  We  have 
shown  you  that  the  policy  means  the  abandonment  of  the 
Monroe  doctrine ;  that  South  America  may  be  punished  but 
her  land  must  not  be  taken.  By  the  terms  of  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  treaty  we  are  absolutely  forbidden  to  fortify  the 
Isthmian  canal.  Germany  cannot  attack  the  canal  to-day, 
but  give  her  a  base  of  operations  and  she  can  attack  that 
canal. 


APPENDIX  663 


SECOND  REBUTTAL  SPEECH  FOR  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 

The  affirmative  have  in  this  case  rested  their  contention 
upon  the  right  of  the  European  government,  to  the  absolute 
right,  to  the  immediate  satisfaction  of  their  claim  on  the  day 
of  the  default.  The  gentlemen  of  the  negative  have  spoken 
of  alternative  methods  of  collecting.  The  question  is,  Shall 
the  United  States  interfere  to  prevent  a  legal  method  of  col- 
lecting a  debt  when  chosen  by  a  creditor  state  ?  It  is  not  a 
strong  case,  gentlemen,  that  cannot  stand  when  placed  under 
a  magnifying  power.  The  gentlemen  have  tried  to  confuse 
the  issue  by  speaking  of  ten  states  having  claims.  They  for- 
get that  under  the  presuppositions  of  our  question  the  Hague 
tribunal  has  set  the  date  for  payment,  and  in  considering  the 
time  when  the  government  can  pay  the  amount  of  the  award 
the  tribunal  does  not  place  the  claims  of  all  on  the  same  day. 
If  we  allow  this  one  seizure  it  will  have  a  good  deal  of  effect 
in  making  the  republic  come  up  on  the  other  dates  when  its 
claims  fall  due.  The  gentlemen  have  admitted  the  right  of  the 
European  creditor  to  immediate  satisfaction,  and  they  admit 
that  the  seizure  of  land  is  the  only  immediate  satisfaction 
possible.  The  gentlemen  speak  of  the  collection  of  internal 
revenues  by  a  trustee.  They  speak  of  temporarily  holding 
land.  If  they  fear  danger  from  the  permanent  holding  of  land, 
let  me  point  them  to  Egypt  and  show  them  what  this  means. 
Where  is  England?  Still  in  Egypt ! 

Gentlemen,  we  rest  our  case  upon  the  fact  that  the  United 
States  has  no  right  to  interfere,  that  she  cannot  afford  to  inter- 
fere, with  the  just  choice  of  a  method. of  collection  by  this 
creditor  nation.  What  is  the  only  motive  for  such  action  the 
gentlemen  have  presented  to  us  ?  They  have  told  us  that  it 
would  be  dangerous  for  the  United  States  to  let  Germany  find 
lodgment  near  us.  They  say  one  port  will  prove  a  menace  to 
the  United  States.  It  might  be  possible  to  persuade  a  Ger- 
man audience,  not  so  an  intelligent  body  of  American  men  and 
women.  There  was  a  European  power  that  had  such  a  port 


664  APPENDIX 

to  which  to  send  her  fleet.     Where,  gentlemen,  is  the  fleet  of 
Cervera  ?     In  Poland ! 

But  the  gentlemen  of  the  negative  have  argued  with  appar- 
ent sincerity.  They  have  convinced  me,  and  I  hope  you,  of 
this,  that  it  would  be  a  technical  advantage  for  the  United 
States  to  keep  an  aggressive  rival  out  of  South  America.  There- 
fore we  say,  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  say,  that  it  should  be 
the  part  of  our  diplomatic  representatives  to  prevent  the  acqui- 
sition of  this  right  by  foreign  governments  to  South  American 
territory.  But  the  mere  advantage  to  be  gained  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  justify  the  United  States  in  interfering  to  prevent  the 
carrying  out  of  an  award  of  the  Hague  tribunal.  There  was 
a  time  when  such  a  motive  would  have  been  sufficient  for  a 
nation.  Napoleon  would  have  acted  and  would  have  broken 
whatever  promises  he  had  made.  Alexander  wanted  to  extend 
his  sphere  of  influence ;  but  to-day  such  an  advantage  or  dis- 
advantage ought  not  to  be  enough  to  influence  the  United 
States  in  entering  on  such  a  policy.  Our  position  then  is 
this,  that  we  have  held  up  a  higher  motive  than  has  domi- 
nated countries  in  the  past ;  we  have  held  up  the  motive  of 
international  justice  and  arbitration. 

THIRD  KEBUTTAL  SPEECH  FOB  THE  NEGATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen  :  If  Egypt  were  located  in  Venezuela 
and  not  where  she  is  to-day,  England  would  not  be  perma- 
nently retaining  Egypt.  Allow  me  to  carry  your  attention 
back  to  the  second  speaker  upon  the  affirmative.  The  second 
speaker  said  that  if  there  had  been  an  earthquake  just  before 
the  debt  fell  due  we  would  not  allow  the  seizure  of  land ;  if 
the  South  American  state  sends  money  to  pay  its  debt  and  the 
ship  in  which  it  is  being  sent  is  lost  at  sea,  we  would  not 
allow  the  seizure  of  land.  But  in  looking  over  the  resolution 
I  fail  to  find  any  seventh  condition  which  reads  that  the 
United  States  shall  not  permit  the  seizure  of  land  if  there 
has  been  an  earthquake.  I  fail  to  find  any  eighth  condition 


APPENDIX  665 

that  the  United  States  shall  not  allow  the  seizure  of  land  in 
the  event  that  the  ship  in  which  money  is  sent  to  pay  the 
debt  is  lost  at  sea,  and  I  fail  to  find  any  ninth  condition  which 
says  that  the  United  States  shall  not  permit  the  seizure  of 
land  if  there  has  been  any  other  good  reason  why  the  debtor 
state  has  defaulted. 

Gentlemen  and  ladies,  in  closing  this  debate  for  the  nega- 
tive, I  would  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  first  consideration 
should  be  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  and  as  we  have 
pointed  out,  if  we  are  to  adopt  this  resolution,  our  safety  will 
in  many  cases  be  endangered.  If  we  are  to  protect  those 
interests  we  should  continue  the  policy  we  have  continued 
for  eighty  years.  Allow  me  to  compare  the  position  of  the 
affirmative  with  that  of  the  negative.  We  have  pointed  out 
to  you  methods  by  which  the  state  might  be  compelled  to 
pay  its  debts.  Nations  in  the  past  have  never  found  any 
difficulty  in  collecting  debts.  To-day  one  of  the  most  bank- 
rupt states  in  South  America  has  made  arrangements  for  the 
payment  of  her  debts.  And  yet  the  nation  we  are  discussing 
is  a  free-trade  nation  and  can  exist  without  even  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only.  It  has  great  internal  resources.  We  are  per- 
fectly willing  to  adopt  some  means  to  insure  the  collection 
of  the  debt,  but  the  permanent  seizure  of  land,  the  loss  of 
which  cannot  be  estimated  from  the  standpoint  of  the  debtor 
states,  and  the  value  of  which  cannot  be  estimated  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  creditor  states,  is  far  more  than  a  mere 
punitive  measure.  Punishment  should  be  temporary,  not  per- 
manent. At  the  beginning  we  pointed  out  that  the  position 
of  the  affirmative  was  too  broad  and  sweeping.  But  the  affirm- 
ative have  seen  fit  to  consider  these  six  conditions  as  if  sepa- 
rate and  apart  from  all  other  conditions.  Once  more  we  call 
to  your  attention  the  fact  that  they  must  prove  that  wherever 
and  whenever  these  conditions  exist  we  should  permit  the  sei- 
zure of  land.  We  proceeded  to  show  that  the  position  of  the 
affirmative  was  a  radical  departure  from  our  policy  of  the  past 
eighty  years.  Once  more  we  decline  to  discuss  the  intention 


666  APPENDIX 

of  President  Monroe,  but  the  fact  remains,  and  the  very 
strength  of  the  doctrine  lies  in  the  fact  that  we  have  never 
allowed  any  exception,  any  opening  wedge.  We  have  enforced 
it  in  more  extreme  cases  than  that  outlined,  and  it  has  never 
once  called  forth  a  protest  from  a  single  European  govern- 
ment. What  value  does  the  affirmative  put  on  the  seizure  of 
a  strip  of  land  in  South  America  that  a  European  nation  would 
be  willing  to  go  to  war  with  the  United  States  ?  We  do  not 
see  that  the  fact  that  there  may  be  difficulties  in  following 
up  a  policy  proves  that  the  policy  is  bad.  Everything  that 
amounts  to  anything  has  some  difficulties  in  its  way,  but  as 
we  have  pointed  out  —  [Bell.] 

THIRD  REBUTTAL  SPEECH  FOB  THE  AFFIRMATIVE 

Ladies  and  gentlemen:  The  position  of  the  negative  is 
summed  up  -in  this  sentence :  Our  first  consideration  should 
be  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  The  position  of  the 
affirmative  is  that  our  first  consideration  should  be  the  best 
interests  of  the  world  at  large.  We  maintain,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  that  the  one  great  consideration  in  this  question 
is  the  adherence  to  the  principle  of  arbitration.  The  United 
States  has  been  the  leader  in  this  principle  and  in  carrying 
it  out  in  the  years  past.  We  say  that  if  the  United  States, 
the  leader  in  that  principle,  once  repudiates  it,  what  can  we 
expect  from  other  nations  ?  What  can  we  expect  from  inter- 
national arbitration  ?  The  gentlemen  throughout  this  debate 
have  not  endeavored  to  deny  one  contention  that  has  appeared 
throughout  this  discussion,  namely,  that  on  the  date  stipu- 
lated for  payment  the  European  state  has  the  right  to  extin- 
guish the  debt.  The  gentlemen  say  that  we  must  under  no 
conditions  allow  the  immediate  settlement  of  the  debt  by  the 
seizure  of  land.  Suppose  the  European  state  had  then  allowed 
another  three  years  in  which  the  South  American  state  should 
pay  its  debt.  That  time  is  up,  and  the  South  American  state 
has  not  paid.  What  then  shall  we  do  ?  Let  them  take 


APPENDIX  667 

possession  and  seize  the  revenues  and  collect  them  as  they 
see  fit?  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  if  there  is  anything  that  is 
uncertain,  it  is  the  revenues  of  a  South  American  republic. 
And  ladies  and  gentlemen,  if  the  European  state  once  gets 
temporary  possession,  not  of  a  small  piece  of  territory,  but 
of  a  whole  country,  we  say  that  that  European  state  would 
stay  there  once  and  for  all.  The  gentleman  has  said  that  if 
Egypt  were  in  South  America  the  English  would  not  be  there. 
I  might  say  that  Russia  and  France  are  just  as  eager  to  get 
England  out  of  Egypt  as  we  would  be  to  get  her  out  of  South 
America.  I  cite,  moreover,  the  case  of  Cyprus.  Great  Britain 
still  has  Cyprus  and  there  is  no  prospect  that  Cyprus  will 
ever  get  out  of  her  hands.  The  proposition  of  the  other  side 
is  that  the  European  state  shall  take  uncertain,  dilatory 
means  of  payment  —  means  of  payment  that  will  in  no  way 
satisfy  the  award.  We  say  the  European  state  has  certain 
rights,  including  the  right  to  seize  land  since  that  is  the 
only  means  of  obtaining  immediate  payment  at  hand.  And 
we  say  that  the  European  state  will  fight  if  that  right  is 
interfered  with.  If  as  has  been  said  the  European  state  is 
so  hostile  to  the  United  States  that  if  it  once  gets  into  South 
America  it  is  going  to  get  into  constant  conflict  with  us,  is  it 
not  likely  they  would  fight  in  this  case?  The  danger  is  in 
the  danger  of  interference.  The  danger  is  not  in  allow- 
ing the!  European  state  to  seize  land  in  South  America,  for 
once  they  have  learned  that  the  United  States  will  not  pro- 
tect them  in  repudiating  an  honest  obligation,  these  nations, 
if  they  believe  in  retaining  their  sovereignty,  will  never  allow 
these  conditions  to  arise  again.  Teach  them  self-reliance, 
teach  them  financial  responsibility  and  honor,  and  not  only 
South  American  interests  but  the  interests  of  the  world  at 
large  demand  that  the  United  States  in  this  case  permit  the 
seizure  of  land. 


INDEX 


Academy,  The,  July  27,  1895, 
quoted  from,  131. 

sEschines,  vs.  Ctesiphon,  perora- 
tion, 351-2  ;  summary  of  charges, 
200-1. 

Affirmative,  opening  speech  for, 
in  debate,  416 ;  second  speech 
for,  418. 

Alden,  R.  M.,  The  Art  of  Debate, 
404. 

Ambiguous  evidence,  arguing  from, 
151. 

Amplifying  and  diminishing,  344. 

Analogy,  argument  from,  106-8. 

Analysis,  chapter  on,  14-63 ;  defi- 
nition of,  14;  exercises  in,  6k- 
3 ;  importance  of,  14 ;  first 
step  in  (phrasing  the  question), 
17-20;  second  step  in  (defining 
the  terms),  20-42;  third  step  in 
(finding  the  special  issue),  43- 
60 ;  fourth  step  in  (construction 
of  case),  60 ;  most  essential  part 
of,  58 ;  summary  of  four  steps 
in,  60 ;  specimens  of,  Appendix, 
455,  458,  461,  463,  465. 

Anderson,  M.  B.,  150. 

Antecedent  probability,  argument 
from,  footnote,  98. 

Arguing,  from  a  false  assumption, 
149  ;  from  assumption  of  causal 
relationship,  154;  from  ambigu- 


ous evidence,  151 ;  from  a  part 
to  the  whole,  161 ;  in  a  circle, 
147. 

Argument,  divisions  of,  11;  from 
analogy,  106 ;  from  antecedent 
probability,  footnote,  98 ;  from 
authority,  66  (tests  of,  67);  from 
causal  relationship,  95-9;  from 
cause  to  effect,  96  (tests  of,  97) ; 
from  effect  to  cause,  99  (tests  of, 
99) ;  from  example,  footnote,  98 ; 
from  resemblance,  101  (tests  of, 
104);  from  sign,  fpotnote,  98; 
inductive  and  deductive,  90- 
111;  modified  forms  of,  394. 

Argument  proper,  work  of,  12 ; 
second  division  of  forensic,  342. 

Argumentation,  chapter  on  nature 
of,  1-13;  exercises  in,  13;  field 
of,  13 ;  first  step  in,  13 ;  four 
rhetorical  essentials  of,  359-94. 

Argumentative  speech,  specimens 
of,  Appendix,  614,  628. 

Argumentum  ad  hominem,  163. 

Argumentum  ad  populum,  165. 

Assertion,  definition  of,  64 ;  origin 
of,  66. 

Assertiveness,  ways  of  removing, 
72  ;  specimens  of,  Appendix,  530, 
533. 

Authority,  argument  from,  66; 
tests  of,  67. 


670 


INDEX 


Beecher,  H.  W.,  speech  at  Liver- 
pool, 56,  187,  309,  322. 

Begging  the  question,  147-57. 

Best,  On  Evidence,  68,  69. 

Black,  J.  -S.,  The  Eight  to  Trial  by 
Jury,  189. 

Brevity,  in  excitation,  337 ;  in  pero- 
ration, 355-8. 

Brief,  compared  with  outline,  211; 
divisions  of,  213 ;  conclusion  of, 
253-5;  brief  proper  in,  230-53; 
introduction  of,  217-30;  origin 
of,  206 ;  purpose  of,  205. 

Brief-drawing,  chapter  on,  205-89 ; 
exercises  in,  285-9 ;  material  for, 
Appendix,  506,  508,  617,  524; 
summary  of  rules  for,  255-7. 

Brief  proper,  230-53 ;  arrangement 
of,  231^2 ;  connectives  in,  245 ; 
correlation  in,  252;  phrasing  of, 
242-53 ;  purpose  of,  230. 

Briefs,  quoted  as  illustrations  of 
analysis,  Appendix,  455,  458, 
461,  463,  465;  badly  correlated 
refutation,  253  ;  clash  of  opinion, 
Appendix,  445,  451,  452,  454; 
crowded  headings,  247 ;  frag- 
mentary outline,  208  (revised, 
213);  good  briefing,  Appendix, 
483,  493 ;  obscure  objections, 
251  (revised,  251);  order  of  argu- 
ment, 232,  233;  poor  briefing, 
Appendix,  472,  474,  479;  poor 
correlation,  225  (revised,  226), 
227,229;  poor  introduction,  218, 
219;  poor  main  headings,  243; 
poor  transitions,  239  (revised, 
240),  240;  position  of  refutation, 
234,  235,  236,  237,  Appendix, 
467;  specimen  drawn  from  a 


speech,   Appendix,    503;  vague 

phrasing,  249;   wrong  connect- 
ives, 246. 
Briefs  quoted,  topics  of: 

Are  the  Irish  justified  in  using 
Illegal  Measures  of  Resistance 
to  English  Rule  ?  232. 

Boards  of  Arbitration  with 
Powers  of  Compulsory  Inves- 
tigation and  Decision  should 
be  Instituted  in  this  Country, 
234. 

Can  a  Voter  better  Serve  his 
Country  by  Consistently  Sup- 
porting one  Party  than  by 
being  an  Independent  Voter? 
272. 

Convicts  should  be  Productively 
Employed,  even  though  they 
come  into  Competition  with 
the  Outside  Market,  235. 

Did  the  Council  of  Constance 
Maintain  the  Principle  that 
it  was  Unnecessary  for  the 
Church  to  Keep  Faith  with 
a  Heretic?  233. 

Does  Lamb  Rightly  Estimate  the 
Artificial  Comedy  of  the  Last 
Century  ?  227,  243. 

Does  the  Gorge  of  the  Niagara 
River  Afford  a  Sufficient  Index 
of  the  Duration  of  Post-Glacial 
Time  ?  225. 

Harvard  should  Engage  a  Per- 
manent Professional  Coach  for 
the  Varsity  and  Freshman 
Rowing  Squads,  Appendix, 
445. 

Japanese  Control  would  be  better 
than  Russian  Control  for  the 


INDEX 


671 


Political  and  Economic  In- 
terests of  Corea,  209,  213. 

On  a  Pension  Case,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  208. 

Political  Union  with  Cuba  would 
be  Desirable  for  the  United 
States,  208. 

Saloons  Conducted  on  the  Plan 
of  the  Subway  Tavern  in  New 
York  Promote  Temperance, 
Appendix,  474. 

Should  an  Eight-Hour  Working 
Day  be  Adopted  within  the 
United  States  ?  Appendix,  458. 

Should  Boston  Adopt  a  System 
of  Underground  Transit  ?  239. 

Should  Capital  Punishment  be 
Abolished  ?  Appendix,  467, 
479. 

Should  Onset  be  Set  Off  from 
Wareham  as  a  New  Town? 
Appendix,  493. 

Should  the  Dispensary  System 
for  the  Sale  of  Intoxicating 
Liquors  be  Adopted  in  the 
United  States?  Appendix,  451. 

Students  of  Wellesley  College 
should  have  Self-Government, 
240 ;  Appendix,  472. 

The  Annexation  of  Canada  by 
Treaty  with  Great  Britain 
would  be  Economically  Advan- 
tageous to  the  United  States, 
257. 

The  Army  Canteen  should  be 
Reestablished,  Appendix,  454. 

The  Cecil  Khodes  Scholarships 
will  Accomplish  the  Purpose 
of  their  Founder,  Appendix, 
465. 


The  Changes  in  the  Present 
Banking  Law,  as  Proposed  by 
Senator  Aldrich,  should  be 
Adopted,  Appendix,  461. 

The  Lodge  Bill  is  the  Best  Method 
for  Excluding  Undesirable  Im- 
migrants, 218. 

The  Severe  Policy  of  our  Army 
Officers  in  the  Philippine  Is- 
lands to  suppress  the  Rebellion 
and  to  Establish  Civil  Govern- 
ment is  not  Justifiable,  Appen- 
dix, 455. 

The  System  of  Bank-note  Issues 
based  on  General  Assets, 
as  recommended  by  the  Indian- 
apolis Monetary  Commission, 
is  Preferable  to  the  Present 
System  based  on  United 
States  Bonds,  237. 

The  Troops  should  be  Removed 
from  Boston,  236,  Appendix, 
503. 

That  in  their  Recent  Clash  with 
the  Students  of  the  Massachu- 
setts Institute  of  Technology, 
the  Police  Exceeded  their  Legal 
Rights,  Appendix,  483. 

Tuition  in  Harvard  College 
should  be  Increased  from 
$150  to  $225,  Appendix,  463. 

Was  •  it  Wise  for  Adams  to  send 
the  Envoys  to  France  in  1799? 
219. 

Was  Mr.  Pullman  right  in  Refus- 
ing to  Arbitrate  ?  227. 

Was  Swift  Married  to  Stella? 
249. 

Will  Matthew  Arnold  Live  as  a 
Poet  ?  247,  248. 


672 


INDEX 


Will  the  New  Rules  in  Football 

Improve  the  Game  ?  246, 
Women  should  have  the  Same 
Suffrage  Rights  in  the  United 
States  as  Men,  Appendix,  452. 

Brooks,  Phillips,  Lectures  on 
Preaching,  386. 

Brosnahan,  Bev.  T.  J.,  President 
Eliot  and  Jesuit  Colleges,  176. 

Bryan,  W.  J.,  Speech  at  Demo- 
cratic National  Convention,  370. 

Burden  of  Proof,  402-4. 

Burke,  Edmund,  Case  of  Warren 
Hastings,  52;  Conciliation  with 
American  Colonies,  76,  188,  376 ; 
Thoughts  on  the  Cause  of  the 
Present  Discontents,  Appendix, 
431. 

Characterization,  use  of,  369-71. 

Chatham,  Lord,  On  the  Employ- 
ment of  Indians  in  the  War 
against  the  Colonies,  footnote,  9, 
'Appendix,  428;  On  the  Slave 
Trade,  381 ;  Removal  of  Troops 
from  Boston,  Appendix,  503. 

Choice  of  topics,  three  suggestions 
for,  footnote,  19 ;  in  debating, 
398-402. 

Circumstantial  evidence,  defini- 
tion of,  84;  classification  of,  as 
deductive  and  inductive,  89-108. 

Clash  in  opinion,  in  case  of  Nor- 
mannia,  27  ;  illustrations  of,  Ap- 
pendix, 445,  451,  452,  454;  most 
essential  part  of  analysis,  58; 
provides  the  special  issue,  43-69. 

Clearness,  in  peroration,  355  ;  sec- 
ond rhetorical  essential  in  argu- 
mentation, 363-77. 


Climax,  241^2. 

Collins,  J.  C.,  Swift  and  Stella, 
Appendix,  508. 

Conclusion,  of  Brief,  253-5 ;  quali- 
fying, 254;  purpose  of,  253; 
when  to  be  used  in  Introduction, 
312. 

Concreteness,  in  argumentation, 
364 ;  value  of,  in  persuasion,  338.' 

Connectives  in  brief-drawing,  245. 

Construction  of  case,  fourth  step 
in  analysis,  60. 

Contentiousness,  distinguished 
from  argumentation,  2  ;  exercises 
in,  13. 

Conviction,  complementary  to  per- 
suasion, 9;  distinguished  from 
persuasion,  7  ;  exercises  in,  13. 

Crissey,  F.,  Spellbinders  and 
Straw  Ballots,  325. 

Crowded  headings,  in  brief  proper, 
247. 

Curtis,  G.  T.,  Life  of  Daniel  Web- 
ster, 34. 

Debate,  a  specimen,  Appendix,  637. 

Debating,  chapter  on,  398-424; 
attitude  toward  colleague  in, 
405-8 ;  burden  of  proof  in,  402-4 ; 
choice  of  topics  in,  398-402; 
common  faults  in,  398;  external 
form  in,  413 ;  final  rebuttal  in, 
420 ;  form  in,  412 ;  formalism  in, 
421;  rebuttal  in,  410-12;  pre- 
liminary conferences  in,  404-5; 
progression  in,  408;  speeches 
from  floor  in,  419;  unity  in 
debate,  409;  unity  in  each  side 
of  case,  408;  work  of  each 
speaker  in,  415-9. 


INDEX 


673 


Deductive  argument,  90;  use  of, 
91 ;  value  of,  92. 

Definition  of  terms,  advantages  of 
preliminary,  40-2 ;  illustration 
of,  Appendix,  431;  faulty,  22-35; 
second  step  in  analysis,  20-42  ; 
through  history  of  the  question, 
35 ;  necessity  of  preliminary,  37- 
40. 

Demosthenes,  Answer  to  Charges  of 
jEschines,  201-4 ;  First  Philippic, 
324, 335-7  ;  On  the  Crown,  352-3. 

Description,  use  of,  in  argumenta- 
tion, 367  ;  value  of,  371. 

Detroit  Evening  News  quoted  from 
as  illustration  of  inconsistent 
testimony,  118. 

Devens,  Colonel,  speech  to  his  regi- 
ment, 321. 

Dicey,  A.  V.,  The  Verdict,  72, 121. 

Dilemma,  the,  186. 

Direct  and  indirect  evidence,  foot- 
note, 84. 

Direct  proof,  definition  of,  13 ;  ar- 
rangement of,  hi  brief  proper, 
231-42. 

Disagreement,  causes  of,  78 ;  analy- 
sis of,  80. 

Disraeli,  On  the  Berlin  Congress, 
369. 

Dryden,  Defence  of  an  Essay  of 
Dramatic  Poesy,  305. 

Ease  in  peroration,  358. 
Emotion,  danger  of  showing,  333 ; 

three  essential  qualities  in,  335-7  ; 

two  means  of  arousing,  332. 
Emphasis,  in  good  refutation,  175 ; 

use  of,  in  argumentation,  371. 
Enforcing  the  consequences,  188. 


Enthymeme,  definition  of,  footnote, 
92. 

Epigram,  use  of,  in  argumentation, 
369 ;  value  of,  371. 

Erskine,  Lord,  Defense  of  Lord 
George  Gordon,  44. 

Evidence,  Chapter  on,  64-205; 
circumstantial,  84-110;  defini- 
tion of,  69;  distinguished  from 
assertion,  64-78 ;  distinguished 
from  evidence  in  law,  69-72 ;  first 
classification  of,  84-9;  exer- 
cises in,  194-205;  handling  of,  to 
make  forcible,  378-83;  kinds 
of,  84-111;  nature  of,  78-84; 
second  classification  of,  89 ;  sum- 
mary of  kinds  of,  109 ;  summary 
of  tests  of,  129;  tests  of,  111- 
30 ;  testimonial,  84,  89. 

Examining  the  witness,  122-30. 

Example,  argument  from,  footnote, 
98. 

Excitation,  for  persuasion,  331-41 ; 
use  of  incomplete  in,  339. 

Exercises,  in  analysis,  61-4 ;  in 
brief-drawing,  285-90 ;  in  debat- 
ing, 423;  in  evidence,  194-205; 
in  nature  of  argumentation,  13 ; 
in  persuasion,  394-6 ;  in  rhetoric 
of  argument,  396-7. 

External  and  internal  tests,  134. 

External  form  in  debating,  413. 

Extraneous  ideas,  exclusion  of,  43. 

Fallacies,  135-68;  analysis  the 
foe  of,  167 ;  attempted  divisions 
of,  136;  dangers  of,  135;  from 
errors  in  observation,  142-6 ; 
from  errors  in  reasoning,  146-66 ; 
from  lack  of  definition,  137-42; 


674 


INDEX 


of  assertion,  148 ;  of  objections, 

165 ;  summary  of,  166. 
Field,  D.  D.,  The  Child  and  the 

State,  324-5. 
Final  rebuttal,  420. 
Finding  special  issue,  third  step  in 

analysis,  43-60. 
Force,  third  rhetorical  essential  in 

argumentation,  377-83. 
Forensic,   definition  of,   footnote, 

11 ;    three    divisions    of,    341 ; 

specimens  of,  Appendix,  530, 533, 

536,  542,  558,  681,  603,  614,  628. 
Forensics  in  Appendix,  topics  of: 

A  New  Plea  on  an  Old  Subject, 
Appendix,  628. 

Is  the  Annual  Expenditure  on 
the  Extermination  of  the  Gypsy 
Moth  Justifiable?  Appendix, 
614. 

Is  Ulster  Justified  in  her  Opposi- 
tion to  Home  Rule?  Appen- 
dix, 589. 

Should  the  Elective  System  be 
Applied  to  High  Schools? 
Appendix,  558. 

Should  there  be  a  Reform  in  our 
Pension  System  ?  Appendix, 
603. 

Should  the  United  States  Army 
be  Increased?  530. 

Was  the  Course  of  the  Beacons- 
field  Ministry  in  the  Eastern 
Question  Advantageous  to 
England?  533. 

Were  Sheriff  Martin  and  His 
Deputies  Justified  in  Firing 
upon  the  Miners  at  Hazelton, 
Pennsylvania,  September  10, 
1897?  636,642. 


Form  in  debating,  412. 

Formalism,  avoidance  of,  the  first 
rhetorical  essential  in  argumen- 
tation, 359-63 ;  in  debate,  421. 

Four  rhetorical  essentials  in  argu- 
mentation, 359-94. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  speech  at 
Constitutional  Convention,  102. 

Froude,  J.  A.,  History  of  England, 
371. 

Gardiner,  J.  H.,  Forms  of  Prose 
Literature,  3,  92. 

Generalization,  93-5,  147. 

Genung,  J.  F.,  Practical  Rhetoricv 
108,  112. 

George,  A.  J.,  Webster's  Select 
Speeches,  34. 

Gilmer,  F.  W.,  Sketches  and  Es- 
says on  Public  Characters,  15. 

Goodrich,  C.  A.,  Select  British 
Eloquence,  298-9. 

Grady,  H.  W.,  speech  on  the 
New  South,  366-8. 

Hapgood,  Norman,  Life  of  Daniel 
Webster,  31,  33. 

Harlan,  Justice,  Behring  Sea  Arbi- 
tration, 374-5. 

Herndon  and  Weik,  Life  of  Lin- 
coln, 14. 

Herrick,  Robert,  The  Common  Lot, 
132. 

History  of  the  question,  26. 

Hoar,  Sherman,  American  Cour- 
age, 368. 

Hope  Anthony,  A  Man  of  Mark, 
164. 

Hostile  audiences,  308-12. 

How  to  stop,  354-9. 


INDEX 


675 


Hugo,  Victor,  Napol&m  le  Petit, 
392-3. 

Hurtful  admissions,  131. 

Huxley,  T.  H. ,  Lectures  on  Evolu- 
tion, 86,  186 ;  Appendix,  436. 

Hypereides,  Funeral  Oration,  347. 

Ignoring  the  question,  159. 

Illustration,  as  proof,  244 ;  use  of, 
in  argumentation,  365. 

Inductive  argument,  90-111. 

Introduction  of  a  brief,  217-30; 
correlation  of,  225-30;  length 
of,  222;  phrasing  of,  223;  pur- 
pose of,  217. 

introduction  of  a  forensic,  341-2 ; 
conviction  in,  341 ;  persuasion 
in,  342  ;  work  of,  12. 

introduction,  specimen  of,  Appen- 
dix, 436. 

Jebb,  -B.  C.,  Attic  Orators,  304, 347, 

348,  351,  362,  373. 
Junius,  First  Letter,  312,  327. 

Kipling,  Rudyard,  Life's  Handicap, 
320. 

Lang,  Andrew,  Mystery  of  Mary 
Stuart,  8,  150. 

Lee,  Sidney,  The  Alleged  Vandal- 
ism at  Stratford-on-Avon,  50-2. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  Letter  to  Gen- 
eral McClellan,  54,  206;  speech 
at  Columbus,  304 ;  speech  to  the 
166th  Ohio,  319. 

Lowell,  J.  jR.,  Literary  Essays, 
363,  387;  Political  Essays,  25. 

Lysias,  Against  Eratosthenes,  348- 
60. 


Macaulay,  T.  B.,  Essays  on  Croker's 
BoswelPs  Johnson,  75,  117,  125, 
364 ;  on  Charles  I,  159 ;  on  Edu- 
cation, 107  ;  on  Reform  Bill,  104 ; 
The  Persecution  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, Appendix,  524. 

Mansfield,  Lord,  Defense  of  Allan 
Evans,  103,  362. 

Material  for  briefing,  Appendix, 
506,  508,  517,  524. 

Matthews,  N. ,  Jr. ,  and  W.  S.  Young- 
man,  The  Proposed  Charles  River 
Dam  and  Water  Park,  178. 

McCall,S.  W.,m  Atlantic  Monthly, 
96. 

McMaster,  J.  B.,  Life  of  Daniel 
Webster,  29,  30,  32. 

Metaphor,  use  of,  in  argumenta- 
tion, 370 ;  value  of,  371. 

Method  of  residues,  185. 

Methods  of  appeal  to  audience,  314. 

Mill,  J.  S.,  Three  Essays  on  Reli- 
gion, 77 ;  System  of  Logic,  106, 
110,  144,  146. 

Minto,  Wm.,  Logic  Inductive  and 
Deductive,  79,  105,  107. 

Motives,  appeal  to  highest,  321; 
grades  in,  315;  variety  of,  315. 

Movement,  the  fourth  rhetorical  es- 
sential in  argumentation,  383-4. 

Narrative,  use  of,  in  argumenta- 
tion, 368;  value  of,  371. 

Negative,  first  speech  for,  in  debate, 
417  ;  second  speech  for,  419. 

Negative  testimony,  130,  131. 

Newman,  J.  H.,  Apologia  pro  Vita 
Sua,  300-2 ;  Idea  of  University, 
1,21.. 

Non  sequitur,  167. 


676 


INDEX 


Norman,  Henry,  The  Far  East, 
130. 

.Normannia,  case  of,  as  illustra- 
tion of  definition  of  terms,  27-8. 

Order  in  persuasion,  327. 
Ottolengui,  E.,  A  Modern  Wizard, 
86,  123. 

Peroration,  of  a  forensic,  343-59; 
emotional  appeal  in,  347 ;  essen- 
tials of  a  good,  350-9;  illustra- 
tions of,  344-59 ;  persuasive  work 
of,  346 ;  work  of,  12. 

Persuasion,  290-341 ;  arising  from 
relation  of  audience  to  subject- 
matter,  314-31 ;  from  relation 
of  speaker  to  his  audience  or 
subject,  297-315 ;  from  nature 
of  subject,  296-7;  complementary 
to  conviction,  9 ;  distinguished 
from  conviction,  7 ;  distinguished 
from  unfair  prejudice,  294-6; 
exercises  in,  13,  394-5 ;  eight 
suggestions  for,  317-31 ;  order 
in,  327  ;  illustrations  of,  Appen- 
dix, 428 ;  summary  of  sugges- 
tions, 331 ;  work  of,  290. 

Phelps,  A.,  Theory  of  Preaching, 
334,  356. 

Phrasing  the  question,  the  first 
step  in  Analysis,  17-20. 

Pitt,  Wm.,  On  the  Slave  Trade, 
381 ;  On  the  Employment  of 
Indians  in  the  War  against  the 
Colonies,  footnote,  9,  428. 

Preliminary  conferences  in  debat- 
ing, 404-5. 

Preparedness  in  good  refutation, 
171. 


Presentation,  chapter  on,  290- 
397  ;  relation  of,  to  investigation, 
290. 

Presumption  vs.  assumption,  foot- 
note, 142. 

Proof,  definition  of,  68. 

Proposition,  dangers  avoided  by 
phrasing  of,  19;  necessary  in 
analysis,  17. 

Qualifying    conclusion    in    brief, 

254. 
Qualifying  statements  a  weakness 

in  argumentation,  381-3. 

Rebuttal,  in  debating,  410 ;  arbi- 
trary and  scattering,  410 ;  final, 
420. 

Recapitulation  of  arguments,  354. 

Reductio  ad  absurdum,  187. 

Refutation,  correlation  of,  252; 
definition  of,  13 ;  essential  but 
complementary,  168;  first  essen- 
tial, preparedness,  171 ;  impor- 
tance of  analysis  in,  172-4; 
opportunities  for,  184-5;  second 
essential,  selection,  174 ;  third 
essential,  emphasis,  175-80. 

Refutation  and  evidence,  184. 

Refutation  and  persuasion,  192. 

Refutation  and  structure,  180-4; 
recurrent,  183 ;  special,  182 ; 
three  positions  of,  180-2. 

Refutation  in  brief-drawing,  233- 
63;  correlation  of,  262;  illus- 
tration of,  Appendix,  467 ;  phras- 
ing of,  260 ;  place  of,  233-42. 

Relation  of  theory  to  practice,  422. 

Rhetoric  of  argument,  341-97; 
exercises  in,  396-7. 


INDEX 


677 


Robinson,  W.  C.,  Forensic  Oratory, 
69,  126,  127. 

Salisbury,  Marquess  of,  speech  in 

House  of  Lords  on  Gordon  and 

the  Soudan,  56. 
Schurz,    Carl,   speech  before    the 

American  Honest  Money  League, 

4 ;  on  the  Democratic  War  Policy, 

48;  on  General  Amnesty,  191; 

The  Crime  of  1873,  Appendix, 

517. 

Selection  in  good  refutation,  174. 
Seward,  W.  H.,  On  the  Irrepress- 
ible Conflict,  375. 
Sheridan,  R.  B.,  Impeachment  of 

Warren  Hastings,  389. 
Shifting  ground,  160. 
Sidgwick,     A.,    The    Process     of 

Argument,  115,  116. 
Sidney,    Sir    Philip,    Defense    of 

Poesy,  357. 

Sign,  argument  from,  footnote,  98. 
Simile,  use  of,  370;  value  of,  371. 
Sincerity  requisite  in  persuasion, 

297. 

Skill  requisite  in  persuasion,  303. 
Smith,  Adam,  Wealth  of  Nations, 

73. 
Special  issues,   definition  of,   49 ; 

illustration  of,   Appendix,  445 ; 

the  finding  of,  the  third  step  in 

analysis,  43-60. 
Special  refutation,  182. 
Speeches  from  the  floor  in  debate, 

419. 
"  Statesmanlike,"  as  illustration  of 

definition  of  terms,  24-35. 


Stating  what  should  be  proved,  163. 
Stevenson,  B.  L.,  Father  Damien, 

366. 
Story,  W.  W.,  A  Roman  Lawyer  in 

Jerusalem,  112,  345;  Life  and 

Letters  of  Joseph  Story,  16. 
Style  in  argument,  385. 
Suggestions  for  persuasion,  317-31. 
Syllogism,  definition  of,  footnote, 

92. 

Tact  requisite  in  persuasion,  302. 
Testimonial  evidence,  84-9. 
Testing  conditions  of  statements, 

120-2. 
Testing  statements   of   witnesses, 

111-20. 
Thayer,  J.  B.,  Law  of  Evidence, 

402. 

Trustworthy  evidence,  130-4. 
Turning  the  tables,  190. 

Undesigned  testimony,  130. 
Unity  hi  debate,  408,  409. 

Waived  matter,  exclusion  of,  47. 

Webster,  Daniel,  The  Writings  and 
Speeches  of,  97,  100;  on  the 
Bank  of  U.  S.  vs.  W.  D.  Prim- 
rose, 45-7;  on  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege, 332-3;  on  White  Murder 
Trial,  390. 

Whately,  Elements  of  Rhetoric, 
106,  154,  163. 

When  to  stop,  350-4. 

Work  of  each  speaker  in  debate, 
415-9. 

Wyatt,  Sir  Thomas,  Defense,  55, 65. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


13Jul'49'Bl 


REC'D  LD 

APR  2  8 '64 -11  AM 
JUN251978 


OCT    6 


LD  21-100w-9,'48(B399sl6)476 


•     ;      > 


